Skip to main content

Full text of "From plant pathologist to Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, 1947-1986 : oral history transcript / 1987"

See other formats


Regional  Oral  History  Office  University  of  California 

The  Bancroft  Library  Berkeley,  California 

University  History  Series 


James  B.  Kendrick,  Jr. 

From  Plant  Pathologist  to 

Vice  President  for  Agriculture  and  Natural  Resources 

University  of  California 

1947-1986 


With  an  Introduction  by 
David  P.  Gardner 


An  Interview  Conducted  by 
Ann  Lage 
in  1987 


Underwritten  by 

The  President's  Office 

University  of  California 


Copyright   (c    1989  by  The  Regents  of  the  University  of  California 


Since  1954  the  Regional  Oral  History  Office  has  been  interviewing 
leading  participants  in  or  well-placed  witnesses  to  major  events  in  the 
development  of  Northern  California,  the  West,  and  the  Nation.   Oral 
history  is  a  modern  research  technique  involving  an  interviewee  and  an 
informed  interviewer  in  spontaneous  conversation.   The  taped  record  is 
transcribed,  lightly  edited  for  continuity  and  clarity,  and  reviewed  by 
the  interviewee.  The  resulting  manuscript  is  typed  in  final  form, 
indexed,  bound  with  photographs  and  illustrative  materials,  and  placed  in 
The  Bancroft  Library  at  the  University  of  California,  Berkeley  and  other 
research  collections  for  scholarly  use.   Because  it  is  primary  material, 
oral  history  is  not  intended  to  present  the  final,  verified,  or  complete 
narrative  of  events.   It  is  a  spoken  account,  offered  by  the  interviewee 
in  response  to  questioning,  and  as  such  it  is  reflective,  partisan, 
deeply  involved,  and  irreplaceable. 


******************************** 

All  uses  of  this  manuscript  are  covered  by  a  legal 
agreement  between  the  University  of  California  and  James  B. 
Kendrick,  Jr.   The  manuscript  is  thereby  made  available  for 
research  purposes.   All  literary  rights  in  the  manuscript, 
including  the  right  to  publish,  are  reserved  to  The  Bancroft 
Library  of  the  University  of  California,  Berkeley.   No  part 
of  the  manuscript  may  be  quoted  for  publication  without  the 
written  permission  of  the  Director  of  The  Bancroft  Library 
of  the  University  of  California,  Berkeley. 

Request  for  permission  to  quote  for  publication  should 
be  addressed  to  the  Regional  Oral  History  Office,  486 
Library,  University  of  California,  Berkeley  94720,  and 
should  include  identification  of  the  specific  passages  to  be 
quoted,  anticipated  use  of  the  passages,  and  identification 
of  the  user. 

It  is  recommended  that  this  oral  history  be  cited  as 
follows: 

James  B.  Kendrick,  Jr.   "From  Plant  Path 
ologist  to  Vice  President  for  Agriculture 
and  Natural  Resources,  University  of 
California,  1947-1986,"  an  oral  history 
conducted  in  1987  by  Ann  Lage ,  the  Regional 
Oral  History  Office,  The  Bancroft  Library, 
University  of  California,  Berkeley,  1989. 


Copy  no. 


JAMES   B.    KENDRICK,    JR. 
1986 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  —   James  B.    Kendrick.    Jr. 


PREFACE  i 

INTRODUCTION  by   David  Pierpont  Gardner  iv 

INTERVIEW   HISTORY  v 


EARLY  INFLUENCES:      FAMILY.    COMMUNITY.    AND  EDUCATION  1 

Parents  from   Farm  Families  in  South  Carolina  and  Iowa  1 

Father's  Early   Career   in  Plant   Pathology  3 

The  Move  to  Davis,    the   "University   Farm,"   1927  4 

Town  and  Gown  Relationships  in  Davis  7 

Religion  and   Politics  in  the  Kendrick  Family  9 

Schooling:      Academics,    Athletics,    and  Evelyn  11 

Entering  UC  Berkeley,    1938:      Bowles  Hall   Resident  16 

Undergraduate  Education  from  Top  Faculty  Members  19 
Going  to  Mecca:  Choosing  Wisconsin  for  Graduate  Studies 

in  Plant   Pathology  24 

II  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN  AND  WARTIME 

SERVICE,  1942-1947  28 

Brother's  Parallel  Path  in  Plant  Pathology  28 

Glenn  Pound,  Fellow  Graduate  Student  30 
The  Lasting  Influence  of  J. C.  Walker  and  other  Wisconsin 

Professors  32 

Trademarks  of  Wisconsin's  Training  in  Plant  Pathology  38 

A  Brief  Navy  Career  40 

Army  Training  and  Assignments:  a  Waiting  Game  42 
Completing  the  Ph.D.:  Research  on  Bacterial  Canker  of  Tomato  47 

Appointment  at  the  Citrus  Experiment  Station,  Riverside  50 

III  CITRUS  EXPERIMENT  STATION,    RIVERSIDE  53 
Work   of  an  Agricultural   Researcher  53 
Agricultural    Constituency    in  Southern  California  58 
Investigating  Vegetable  Diseases  60 
Establishment   of   Air  Pollution  Research  Laboratory  62 
Sabbatical   Year  at   Cambridge  and  Rothamsted  66 
Promoting  Riverside   Faculty  Unity   and  Camaraderie  72 

IV  TRAINING  GROUND   FOR  A  UNIVERSITY  ADMINISTRATOR:      RIVERSIDE 

CAMPUS  GOVERNANCE  79 

Establishment  of  the  Undergraduate  Liberal  Arts  College  79 
The  New  Academics:  Relations  with  Agricultural  Researchers 

and  the  Riverside  Community  82 

Faculty  Organization  into  an  Academic  Senate  84 

Development  of  a  Graduate  Program  87 


Directing  the  Design   for   a  Physical   Master   Plan,    1959  90 

Chairman  of    the  Department   of   Plant   Pathology.    1963 
Academic   Senate  Work:      Educational    Policy,    Personnel, 

Planning  94 

Statewide   Senate   Involvement 
The  Academic   Council 
Organization  of    the  Statewide  Agricultural  Unit 

V  PLANT   PATHOLOGY   DURING  YEARS  OF  CHANGE  AT  RIVERSIDE  106 
A  Collection  of   Specialties  106 
Adding  Specialists  to   the  Department's   Faculty 

Trend  toward  Over-Specialization;   Need  for  Redefinition  of 

the   Field 
Graduate  Teaching  Program  Initiated,    1962  113 

VI  THE  KENDRICKS'    COMMUNITY  ACTIVITIES    IN  RIVERSIDE  118 
Active  in  Presbyterian  Church 

Town  and  Gown  Tensions:      Explaining  the  University   to 

the  Community  121 

Free  Speech  Days  at  Riverside  124 

Membership  in  Community   Organizations 
Evelyn's  School  Board  Service 
An  Unexpected  Job  Offer  from   President   Hitch  129 

VII  THE   FINAL   YEARS  AT  RIVERSIDE  135 
Representing  the  University-wide   Faculty   during  Years  of 

Turbulence  135 

Producing  an  Academic   Plan  for  Riverside  137 

Value  of  Shared  Governance  139 
The  College   of   Natural    and  Agricultural    Sciences:      Pros  and 

Cons  for  Agricultural  Research  140 
Administrative  Organization  of   College   and  Experiment 

Station  142 
Teaching  Responsibilities  and  the  Decline   of   Mission- 
Oriented  Research  146 

VIII  VICE    PRESIDENT  FOR  AGRICULTURAL    SCIENCES—EARLY  CONCERNS  147 
President  Hitch's   Call   for  a  Long-Range  Academic   Plan                     147 
Operating  a   Centralized  Unit  within  the  Decentralized 

University  System  148 

Reports  of  Academic  and  Advisory  Group  Committees  on  the 

Division's  Direction  149 

Pressure  from  Farming  Community.  Legislature,  Regents: 

the  Division  in  a  Defensive  Position  153 

Broadening  Representation  on  the  Agricultural  Advisory 

Council  157 

IX  PUBLIC  SCRUTINY  AND  LEGAL   CHALLENGES   TO  AGRICULTURAL 

PROGRAMS  159 

Agricultural   Mechanization  and  Farm  Labor  Opportunities: 

The  Vasconcellos  Hearings,    1973  159 


Budget  and  Personnel  Problems  in  Nutrition  Education  162 

The  University's  Development  of  the  Tomato  Harvester  166 
Regents'  Meetings  on  Mechanization  and  Labor  Displacement, 

1978  170 
Legal  Action  Challenging  the  University's  Agricultural 

Program,  1979  174 

U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture's  Response  to  the  Lawsuit  176 

The  University's  Response  and  Current  Status  of  the  Suit  178 

Academic  Freedom  and  the  Independence  of  the  Regents  182 

X  THE  RESEARCH  BUDGET   FOR  THE  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION  184 
The  Fixed  Costs  of    Permanent  Academic   Staff   Salaries  184 
Legislative   Protection  for  Agricultural  Research  in  the 

1967  Reagan  Budget  186 
The  Field  Station  System,  Tulelake  to  Imperial  Valley: 

Another  Fixed  Cost  189 

The  Statewide  Critical  Applied  Research  [SCAR]  Fund  193 

Working  with  the  State  Department  of  Finance  196 

XI  THE   AGRICULTURAL   DIVISION  AND  GOVERNORS  REAGAN,    BROWN 

AND  DEUKMEJIAN  198 

Relationship  with   the  Reagan  Administration  198 

Reagan  Advisors  Earl    Coke   and  Allan  Grant  198 
Interpreting   the  University1 s  Mission  to   the   Staff  and 

Community  199 
Protection  for   Philosophical   Differences   in  the   Faculty 

Promotion  Process  200 

Supportive  Oversight   during  Reagan' s  Governorship  203 
Confrontational   Regents'    Meetings,    with  Campus 

Administrators  on  the  Defensive  204 

The  Jerry  Brown-David  Saxon  Era  207 

Warfare  Between  the  Governor  and   the  Regents  207 

Brown  and  the  Budget  210 

Extension's  Budget   Cuts  Restored  by   the  Legislature  212 

The  Budget  as  a   Political   Document  214 
Brown's  Major  Agricultural  Appointments:      Tim  Wallace, 

Rose  Bird,    Rich  Rominger  216 
The   Deukmej ian-Gardner  Years:      Restoring   the  University's 

Stature  and  Its  Budget  220 

XII  SPECIAL   RESEARCH  UNITS  WITHIN  THE   AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT 

STATION  226 

Giannini   Foundation  for  Research  in  Agricultural  Economics  226 

The  Original   Grant  and  Organization  226 
Restructuring  to  Meet   the   Practical  Needs   of   Commercial 

Agriculture  229 

Agricultural   Issues   Center  233 

The   Idea  and  the  Funding  233 

Choosing  a  Diverse  Advisory  Board  239 

Making  the  West   a   Force   in  Agricultural    Policy  243 

Developing  Support   for  Agriculture  in  an  Urban  Society  244 


Kearney   Foundation  for   Soil   Science  246 

Genesis  and  Direction  246 

Flexible  Response   to  the  Kesterson  Crisis  2A9 

Slosson  Fund  for  Ornamental   Horticulture  251 

Mosquito  Research   Program:      Broadening  Decision-Making  for 

a  Cooperative   Effort  252 

San  Joaquin  Valley  Agricultural    Research  and  Extension 

Center  256 

A  UC  Program   for   the  San  Joaquin  Valley  256 

Administrative   Changes  259 

The  Future  of   Cooperative  Extension:      Regional    Centers?  261 

Integrated   Pest   Management   Program  263 

A  New   Concept   of   Disease   and  Insect   Control  263 
Developing  Budgetary   Support   in   the  Jerry  Brown 

Administration  265 

Wildland  Resources   Center  268 

Sustainable  Agriculture  Program  270 

Serving   Small-Scale  and  Organic   Farmers  270 

Legislative  and  Public   Input    to  the  Program  272 

XIII  ADMINISTRATIVE  ADJUSTMENTS  TO  UNIFY   THE   DIVISION  275 
A  Historical   Overview  275 
The  Link  to   the  U.S.    Department   of  Agriculture  278 
Improving  Budgetary   Control   over   "The  Provinces"  280 
The  Day   Committee:      Coordinated   Planning  for  Allocation 

of  Resources  282 
Resistance  to  Reallocating  Positions  between  Campuses  or 

Departments  28A 
Centrifugal  Forces  on  Cooperative  Extension  Planning 

Process  285 
Combining  the  Directorship  of  the  Agricultural  Experiment 

Station  with  the  Vice  Presidency.  1973  287 

Assuming  the  Directorship  of  Cooperative  Extension,  1975  290 

Explaining  the  Division  to  Farm  Bureau  Members  291 

XIV  PERSONNEL    PROBLEMS    IN   COOPERATIVE  EXTENSION  293 
New   Problems.    New   Clientele,    New   Personnel  293 
Inadequate   Funding,    Staff  Reductions,    and   Charges   of 

Discrimination  295 

The  Cooperative  Extension  Assembly  for  Career  Employees  296 
Strong  Committee  and  Kleingartner  Evaluations  of  Accusations 

against  Extension  298 
Another  Administrative  Reorganization:  Lowell  Lewis  and 

Jerry  Siebert  as  Directors  300 
No  Conspiracy  to  Discriminate  but  Some  Unclear  Policies 

and  Procedures  302 
Continued  Tension  between  an  Integrated  Program  and 

Separatist  Tendencies  305 

The  Value  of  Long-Range  Academic  Planning  in  the  Division  310 


XV  THE    DIVISION'S   RESPONSE   TO    CULTURAL    CONFLICTS   AND    CHARGES 

OF  DISCRIMINATION  313 
Cultural  Conflicts  between  Traditional  Extension  Staff  and 

New  Clientele  and  Staff  313 

Affirmative  Action  Workshops  to  Sensitize  Staff  316 

Failings  of  the  Strong  Committee  Report  316 

Commitment  to  Excellence  and  the  Work  Ethic  317 

Role  of  the  Regents  and  the  President  319 
The  Affirmative  Action  Program  in  Extension  and  Its 

Positive  Accomplishments  320 
The  Division's  Exchange  Program  with  Southern  University 

in  Louisiana  324 

Surviving  in  Troubled  Times  329 

XVI  ADMINISTERING    PROGRAMS    OUTSIDE   THE   DIVISION  OF  AGRICULTURE: 

WATER  RESOURCES   AND  UNIVERSITY   SERVICES  332 

The  Water  Resources  Center  and  Its  Archive  332 

Broadening   the   Disciplinary  and  Geographic  Bases  334 

Chairing   the   Interdisciplinary    Coordinating  Board  335 

Working  with  an  External   Advisory    Committee  337 

The   Printing  Plant   and   the  University   Relations  Office  340 

Regents'    Security   Officer,    1976   to   1984  342 

UC  Retirement   System  Board:      Defining  the  Board's  Role  343 

Issues   Debated  by   the  Board  345 

UCRS   Changes  under  President  Gardner  347 

XVII  OTHER  NATURAL   RESOURCES    PROGRAMS   AND   CONCERNS  350 
Changes   in  Administrative  Responsibilities  and  Title, 

1952-1983  350 
College  of  Natural  Resources:  Attempting  to  Establish  a 

Special   Emphasis   for   the  Berkeley   Campus  353 

The  Natural   Reserve   System  360 
Defining  Goals,    Building  Campus   Support   through  an 

Academic   Planning  Process  360 

Publicizing   the   "Best-Kept   Secret"  in  the  University  364 

The  Faculty   Advisory   Committee  367 
Harold  Walt,    David  Gardner,   and  State   Funds  for  Wildland 

Research  368 

XVIII  NATIONAL  LEADERSHIP  ACTIVITIES    IN  AGRICULTURE  372 
Agricultural   Research   Policy   Advisory   Committee  372 
The  National  Association  of   State  Universities  and  Land 

Grant  Colleges'  Division  of  Agriculture  374 
Creating  the  Council  of  Administrative  Heads  of  Agriculture 

(CAHA)  375 

CAHA' s  Leadership  in  Budget  Development  for  the  Division  376 

Foreign  Agricultural  Programs  379 


XIX          SUMMING  UP  382 

Retirement  Events  382 

Outlook  for   the   Future  383 

TAPE  GUIDE  386 

INDEX  388 

University   History   Series  List  393 

Biography  400 

Memorial  Address  by  David   Gardner  404 


PREFACE 


When  President  Robert  Gordon  Sproul  proposed  that  the  Regents  of  the 
University  of  California  establish  a  Regional  Oral  History  Office,  he  vas 
eager  to  have  the  office  document  both  the  University's  history  and  its  impact 
on  the  state.   The  Regents  established  the  office  in  1954,  "to  tape  record 
the  memoirs  of  persons  who  have  contributed  significantly  to  the  history  of 
California  and  the  West,"  thus  embracing  President  Sproul 's  vision  and 
expanding  its  scope. 

Administratively,  the  new  program  at  Berkeley  was  placed  within  the 
library,  but  the  budget  line  was  direct  to  the  Office  of  the  President.  An 
Academic  Senate  committee  served  as  executive.  In  the  more  than  three  decades 
that  followed,  the  program  has  grown  in  scope  and  personnel,  and  has  taken 
its  place  as  a  division  of  The  Bancroft  Library,  the  University's  manuscript 
and  rare  books  Library.  The  essential  purpose  of  the  office,  however,  remains 
as  it  was  in  the  beginning:   to  document  the  movers  and  shakers  of  California 
and  the  West,  and  to  give  special  attention  to  those  who  have  strong  and  often 
continuing  links  to  the  University  of  California. 

The  Regional  Oral  History  Office  at  Berkeley  is  the  oldest  such  entity 
within  the  University  system,  and  the  University  History  series  is  the 
Regional  Oral  History  Office's  longest  established  series  of  memoirs.  That 
series  documents  the  institutional  history  of  the  University.  It  captures 
the  flavor  of  incidents,  events,  personalities,  and  details  that  formal 
records  cannot  reach.  It  traces  the  contributions  of  graduates  and  faculty 
members,  officers  and  staff  in  the  statewide  arena,  and  reveals  the  ways  the 
University  and  the  community  have  learned  to  deal  with  each  other  over  time. 

The  University  History  series  provides  background  in  two  areas.  First 
is  the  external  setting,  the  ways  the  University  stimulates,  serves,  and 
responds  to  the  community  through  research,  publication,  and  the  education 
of  generalists  and  specialists.  The  other  is  the  internal  history  that  binds 
together  University  participants  from  a  variety  of  eras  and  specialties,  and 
reminds  them  of  interests  in  common.  For  faculty,  staff,  and  alumni,  the 
University  History  memoirs  serve  as  reminders  of  the  work  of  predecessors, 
and  foster  a  sense  of  responsibility  toward  those  who  will  join  the  University 
in  years  to  come.   For  those  who  are  interviewed,  the  memoirs  present  a  chance 
to  express  perceptions  about  the  University  and  its  role,  and  to  offer  one's 
own  legacy  of  memories  to  the  University  itself. 

The  University  History  series  over  the  years  has  enjoyed  financial 
support  from  a  variety  of  sources.   These  include  alumni  groups  and  individuals, 
members  of  particular  industries  and  those  involved  in  specific  subject  fields, 
campus  departments,  administrative  units  and  special  groups,  as  well  as  grants 
and  private  gifts.   Some  examples  follow. 


ii 


Professor  Walton  Bean,  with  the  aid  of  Verne  A.  Stadtman,  Centennial 
Editor,  conducted  a  number  of  significant  oral  history  memoirs  in  cooperation 
with  the  University's  Centennial  History  Project  (1968).  More  recently,  the 
Women's  Faculty  Club  supported  a  series  on  the  club  and  its  members  in  order 
to  preserve  insights  into  the  role  of  women  in  the  faculty,  in  research  areas, 
and  in  administrative  fields.  Guided  by  Richard  Erickson,  the  Alumni 
Association  has  supported  a  variety  of  interviews,  including  those  with  Ida 
Sproul,  wife  of  the  President;  athletic  coaches  Clint  Evans  and  Brutus 
Hamilton;  and  alumnus  Jean  Carter  Witter. 

The  California  Wine  Industry  Series  reached  to  the  University  campus 
by  featuring  Professors  Maynard  A.  Amerine  and  William  V.  Cruess,  among 
others.  Regent  Elinor  Heller  was  interviewed  in  the  series  on  California 
Women  Political  Leaders,  with  support  from  the  National  Endowment  for  the 
Humanities;  her  oral  history  included  an  extensive  discussion  of  her  years 
with  the  University  through  interviews  funded  by  her  family's  gift  to  the 
University. 

On  campus,  the  Friends  of  the  East  Asiatic  Library  and  the  UC  Berkeley 
Foundation  supported  the  memoir  of  Elizabeth  Huff,  the  Library's  founder; 
the  Water  Resources  Center  provided  for  the  interviews  of  Professors  Percy 
H.  McGaughey,  Sidney  T.  Harding,  and  Wilfred  Langelier.   Their  own  academic 
units  and  friends  joined  to  contribute  for  such  memoirists  as  Dean  Ewald  T. 
Grether,  Business  Administration;  Professor  Garff  Wilson,  Public  Ceremonies; 
Regents'  Secretary  Marjorie  Woolman;  and  Dean  Morrough  P.  O'Brien,  Engineering, 

As  the  class  gift  on  their  50th  Anniversary,  the  Class  of  1931  endowed 
an  oral  history  series  titled  "The  University  of  California,  Source  of 
Community  Leaders."  These  interviews  will  reflect  President  Sproul 's  vision 
by  encompassing  leadership  both  state-  and  nationwide,  as  well  as  in  special 
fields,  and  will  include  memoirists  from  the  University's  alumni,  faculty 
members,  and  administrators.  The  first  oral  histories  focused  on  President 
Sproul  himself.  Interviews  with  34  key  individuals  dealt  with  his  career 
from  student  years  in  the  early  1900s  through  his  term  as  the  University's 
llth  President,  from  1930  to  1958. 

• 

More  recently,  University  President  David  Pierpont  Gardner  has  shown 
his  interest  in  and  support  for  oral  histories,  as  a  result  of  his  own  views 
and  in  harmony  with  President  Sproul 's  original  intent.  The  University 
History  memoirs  continue  to  document  the  life  of  the  University  and  to  link 
its  community  more  closely — Regents,  alumni,  faculty,  staff  members,  and 
students.  Through  these  oral  history  interviews,  the  University  keeps  its 
own  history  alive,  along  with  the  flavor  of  irreplaceable  personal  memories, 
experiences,  and  perceptions. 

A  full  list  of  completed  memoirs  and  those  in  process  in  the  series  is 
included  in  this  volume. 


ill 


The  Regional  Oral  History  Office  is  under  the  administrative  supervision 
of  Professor  James  D.  Hart,  the  Director  of  The  Bancroft  Library. 


Willa  K.  Baum 
Division  Head 
Regional  Oral  History  Office 

Harriet  Nathan 

Project  Head 

University  History  Series 


9  November  1987 
Regional  Oral  History  Office 
Room  486  The  Bancroft  Library 
University  of  California 
Berkeley,  California 


iv 


INTRODUCTION 


Compelling*    colorful,    and  abundant   in  success   stories,    the  history    of 
the  University's   involvement   in  agriculture  from    the  days  of   Eugene  Hilgard 
to   the   present  is  well  worth   the   telling — and   the  reading.      The   special- 
even  unique — value   of    this  oral    history    is   that   it  represents  a   firsthand 
account   of  a  fascinating  chapter  in  the  evolution  of    the  University's  role 
in  the  development   of   California  agriculture  during  a   time  of   change  and 
adaptation,    told  by  someone  who  was  not   simply  a   spectator   of   those   events 
but   an  active  and  engaged  participant. 

I   first   met  Jim  Kendrick  in  1971,    when  I  joined  the  Office   of   the 
President   in  Berkeley  as   the  vice   president  responsible  for   the  Extended 
University,    University   Extension,    and  an  array   of   public   service   programs. 
Among  my  fellow  vice  presidents  was  a  friendly  and  outgoing  gentleman  whom   I 
instantly   and  instinctively   liked.      That,    of   course,    was  Jim  Kendrick,    whose 
informal  manner  and  common  touch  hid  a  deep  acumen  about   people  and  a 
formidable  knowledge   of   California  agriculture,    from  Davis  to  San  Diego, 
from  Del  Norte   County  to   the  Mexican  border. 

My   own  early  experience  working  for  the  California  Farm  Bureau  had 
educated  me  in  the  dynamics  of   California  agriculture,    and   gave  me  an  even 
deeper  admiration  than  I  would  otherwise  have  had  for  the  breadth  and  scope 
of  Jim's  understanding  of   agriculture's   role — in   the  University   and   in   the 
state — and  his   grasp  of    its  great   potential    and  its  equally   great 
challenges.      Here  you  will   find,    distilled  in  his   own   characteristic   style, 
the  rich  experiences  of   a  lifetime's   involvement  with  a  great  university   and 
with  California's  most  important  economic  activity.      Few    people   could  match 
his  experience   and  his  knowledge;  no  one   could  tell   it  as  vividly   or   as 
well;   and  few  have   served  the  University   of   California  with  such  unstinting 
devotion,    effect,    and  skill  as  has  Jim  Kendrick.      I  commend  this  oral 
history   to  you. 


David  Pierpont  Gardner 

President,   University   of   California 

January,    1989 


INTERVIEW   HISTORY 


This   oral    history    memoir  with  James  B.   Kendrick,    Jr.,    records  a 
lifetime  involvement  with  the  University   of   California.      It   includes 
observations   from   a   close  association  with  three  campuses  of   the  University 
and  nearly   two   decades  as   a  leader  in  the  University's   statewide 
administration. 

Kendrick's  youth  was   spent   in  Davis,    California,    where  his   father, 
James   Kendrick,    Sr.,      was  a   prominent    plant   pathologist  and  eventually  head 
of    the  Department    of    Plant   Pathology.      After   graduation  from    high   school,    he 
attended   the  University   of   California's  Berkeley   campus,   where  his  major  in 
general    curriculum   brought  him   in  contact  with  a  group  of   inspiring 
professors  and  helped   him   define  his    interest   in  following  his   father's 
career   path.      After   a  Ph.D.    from    the  University    of   Wisconsin  and  wartime 
service,    Kendrick  returned  to   the  University   of   California  as   a  junior   plant 
pathologist   at   the  Citrus  Experiment   Station  in  Riverside   in  1947. 

For  the  next  twenty-one  years,    his  own   path  from  agricultural 
researcher   to  head  of    the  Department   of   Plant  Pathology,    with  increasing 
involvement  in  university  governance,    paralleled  the  growth  to   prominence   of 
the   Riverside   campus.      Kendrick's   interview   provides  valuable   observations 
on  the  establishment   of    the  College   of  Letters  and  Science  and   eventual 
expansion  to  a  full  UC  campus,    with  the  concomitant  tensions  between  town 
and  gown  and  between  the  agricultural   station  and   the   general   campus.      He 
describes  his  and   others'   efforts   to  promote   faculty   camaraderie  and   good 
relations  with  the  community.      He  also   demonstrates  how  his  faculty 
committee  work  in  academic  and  physical  planning,    educational   policy,    and 
personnel   evaluation  prepared  him  for  his  appointment  as  vice   president   for 
the   statewide   Division  of   Agricultural    Sciences   in  1968. 

The  major   part  of   the   oral   history   is   devoted  to   the   nearly   two   decades 
of    leadership   of    the  University's  "tenth  campus" — what   is  now   called   the 
Division  of  Agriculture  and  Natural   Resources.      The   division  is  a   complex 
collection  of   diverse   units,     in  every   part   of   California.      Because   authority 
or  funding  for  most   of   these  units  is   shared  with  individual   campuses,    with 
local   counties,    and  with  the  federal   government,    the  vice-president  at  the 
systemwide  level   places  his   program   in   effect   only   through   persuasiveness, 
patience,    and   good-humored   persistance. 

In  developing  the   division's   program,    Kendrick  was   obliged  to  listen  to 
a  multiplicity   of   interest    groups,    including  representatives   of   the   diverse 
elements  of   the  agricultural  community   that  the  University   serves;    the 
legislative  and  executive  branches  of    the   state   government;    federal   mandates 
for   federally    funded  programs;   and  the  farm  labor  and  minority   communities, 
who  were  not   the   traditional    constituency   of   the   division's   programs  and 
who  expressed  their  concerns   through   protests  and  lawsuits  rather  than  the 
customary    program  advisory    committees. 


vl 


Kendrick's   discussion  of    how    he  attempted  to  move   the   division  in  the 
direction  of   serving  a  broader   constituency  and  meeting  new   societal 
concerns  begins  with  an  explanation  of    the  fixed  nature  of   the  program  and 
the   personnel   in  his  two  major  units:      the  Agricultural   Experiment   Station 
and  the  Cooperative  Extension  Service.      He   then  demonstrates  how  he  managed 
to  introduce  flexibility  into  the   programs  and  to   bring  sometimes  entrenched 
personnel    into  line  with  new    division  demands.      His  survey   of   ongoing 
projects  and  new   directions   gives  the  reader  an  overview    of   these   two  units 
and  insights  into  the  difficulty   of   rapid  changes  within  a  complex 
University  setting. 

Two  other   particularly   instructive   sections   of    the  oral   history 
consider,    first,    the  relationship  of    the   division  with   the  legislature  and 
with  the   three  gubernatorial    administrations   in  office   during  Kendrick's 
tenure;   and   second,    the   personnel   problems  and   charges   of   discrimination   in 
the   Cooperative   Extension  Service   and  Kendrick's  attempts   to  reach   solutions 
in  an  tense  atmosphere. 

Kendrick's   philosophy    in  meeting  these   challenges   is   expressed  in   this 
passage  from   his   oral   history:      "I  figure   if     you're   going  to   learn   to   walk, 
take    one    step   at   a    time.       Pretty    soon  you'll  be   running.      But    if  you  don't 
start  walking,    that  just   delays   the  end  of    the  race." 

Kendrick's   patience,    persistance,    and  good-humored   determination  have 
been   displayed   throughout  his   career.      He  has   also   displayed  them   in 
fighting  and  living  with  cancer  for   the  past   several   years.      During  the 
course  of   these  interviews  for  his   oral   history  and  during   the  lengthy  and 
demanding  editing  process,    his  health  was  variable,   but   he  continued   to 
focus  his  energies  to   produce  a   thorough  and   thoughtful   history   of   his 
career   and   of    the  University's  Division  of   Agriculture  and  Natural 
Resources. 

The   twelve  interview   sessions  took  place  from   September  2.    1987,  to 
November  13,    1987,    in  Mr.    Kendrick's  home  in  Berkeley.      He  reviewed   the 
transcipt  with  care,    sometimes  rewording  passages  for  greater  clarity  and 
conciseness.      The  memoir  was   funded  by   the   President's   Office   of   the 
University   of   California.      Tapes   of    the  interviews   are  available   in  The 
Bancroft  Library. 


Ann  Lage 
Interviewer/Editor 


January  31,    1989 
Berkeley,    California 


Dr.  James  B.  Kendrick, 
retired  UC  official,  dies  at  68 


T7w 

BERKELEY  -  Dr.  James  B. 
Kendrick  Jr.,  formerly  vice  presi 
dent  for  Agriculture  and  Natural 
Resources  at  the  University  of  Cali 
fornia  at  Berkeley,  died  Wednesday 
of  cancer.  He  was  68. 

Dr.  Kendrick  retired  in  June 
1986  after  nearly  40  years  with  the 
university. 

He  took  a  bachelor  of  arts  degree 
in  botany-genetics  from  DC-Berke 
ley  in  1942,  and  following  two  years 
of  military  service  he  took  his  doc 
toral  degree  in  plant  pathology 
from  the  University  of  Wisconsin  in 
1947. 

He  joined  the  staff  at  UC  Riv 
erside  in  1947  as  a  plant  pathologist 
at  the  Citrus  Experiment  Station, 
and  became  a  professor  of  plant 
pathology  and  chairman  of  the 
Plant  Pathology  Department.  He 
was  in  1968  appointed  to  the  new 
job  of  vice  president  for  agricultur 
al  sciences  which  became  vice 
president  of  Agricultural  and  Natu 
ral  Resources,  at  UC-Berkeley. 

He  was  responsible  for  coordi 
nation  of  UC's  statewide  programs 
in  agricultural  research  and  educa 
tion,  for  the  Natural  Reserve  sys 
tem  and  Cooperative  Extension 
and  4-H,  and  he  served  16  years  on 
the  State  Board  of  Food  and  Agri 
culture. 


Dr.  Kendrick  was  a  member  of 
the  executive  committee  of  the  Na 
tional  Association  of  State  Univer 
sities  and  Land-Grant  Colleges,  a 
representative  to  the  Western  Re 
gional  Council  of  the  Joint  Council 
of  Food  and  Agricultural  Sciences, 
and  until  recently  chairman  of  the 
Scientific  Review  Panel  on  Toxic 
Air  Contaminants,  a  nine-member 
stat*  board. 

He  was  a  member  of  the  First 
Congregational  Church  of  Berke 
ley,  and  a  director  of  Guide  Dogs 
for  the  Blind  in  San  Rafael. 

Dr.  Kendrick  is  survived  by  his 
wife,  Evelyn,  of  Berkeley;  his 
mother,  Violet,  of  Davis;  a  brother, 
E.L.  Kendrick,  of  Tucson,  Ariz;  a 
sister,  Elizabeth  Gale,  of  Wood 
land;  a  son,  Douglas  Kendrick,  of 
Berkeley;  a  daughter,  Janet  Ken 
drick,  of  Davis,  and  two  grandchil 
dren,  Amber  and  Shane. 

A  memorial  service  will  held 
Wednesday  at  2  p.m.  in  the  First 
Congregational  Church  at  2345 
Channing  Way. 

The  family  asks  that  no  flowers 
be  sent,  but  that  donations  be  made 
to  the  Alta  Bates-Herrick  Hospice 
in  Berkeley,  or  to  Guide  Dogs  for 
the  Blind  in  San  Rafael. 


Obituary 

The  Tribune,  Oakland,  California 
February  16,  1989 


Mr.  Kendrick  died  on  February  15,  1989,  as  his  oral  history  was 

being  readied  for  binding.   The  address  by  President  Gardner  at 

his  memorial  service  on  February  22  has  been  included  in  the 
appendix. 


I      EARLY   INFLUENCES:      FAMILY.    COMMUNITY,    AND   EDUCATION 

Parents   from  Farm   Families.    South   Carolina  and   Iowa 
[Date   of   Interview:      September  2,    1987]    ## 


Lage:  This   is  Ann  Lage    interviewing  James  B.    Kendrick,    Jr.      Do  you 

still   use   the   "junior"? 

Kendrick:      Yes,    I    do.      Let   me   explain   the  reason  for   using  junior.       My 

father  and   I  were  in  the   same   profession  and   employed   by   the    same 
institution  at   different   locations.      I   felt   that   in  order   to  be 
identified  and   prevent    confusion,    I  would  preserve   the  use   of 
junior  as   part   of    my  name.       So   I've   done   it  all   these  years,    even 
though  he  was   deceased   in   1962. 

Lage:  That  makes  sense.      You  were  writing  papers   in  the  same  field. 

Kendrick:      Yes. 

Lage:  That's   something  we'll  get   into — how   you  followed  in  your 

father's   footsteps. 

Today    we're   going  to   start  with   personal   background, 
especially  focusing  on  how   it  might  have  influenced  your  later 
career — policies,    decisions,    and   points    of    view.      Let's    start 
with  your  family,    your    parents. 

Kendrick:      Well,    my   parents  had  their  origin  in  two  rather  different 

locations.      My   father   goes   back  to   South   Carolina.      He  was   born 
in  a   rural    setting,    in  a   farm   setting,    in  York  County   near 
Clover,    South   Carolina,    which  was  very   close  to   the   border 
between  South  Carolina  and  North   Carolina.      The  largest   major 
town  where   they  used  to  go  shopping  for  major   things  was 
Gastonia,     North    Carolina. 


##  This   symbol    indicates   that  a   tape   or   segment   of   a  tape  has 
begun  or  ended.      For  a   guide   to   the   tapes,    see   page  386. 


Lage:  He  was   raised  on  the  farm? 

Kendrick:      He  was   raised  on  a   farm.      His   father  died  early,    and  so  he  was 
raised  by  an  uncle,    back  in  the   family   home.      His   mother  went 
back  to   the  family   home.      I   have  a  lot  of   fond  memories  of 
visiting  that   southern  rural   society,    in   terms   of   how    they   eeked 
out   a   living  on   not  a  very   affluent   piece    of    ground. 

Lage:  About  how  large  was   the   farm? 

Kendrick:      I   don't  remember,    but   it  was   several    hundred  acres,    and   the   usual 
kind  of   cropping  of    corn  and   cotton.      But   my   recollections   of 
that   farm    are   childhood  recollections.       I   don't  have   a  lot  of 
lasting  impressions,    except   those   that  you   get  as  a   seven,    eight, 
or   ten-year-old   because  when  we  moved  to  California  our  visiting 
back  in   that   setting  of   South   Carolina  was  very    infrequent. 

My    father  was  born  in  1893,    and  he  ultimately  went   to 
Qemson  University.      I   think   there  was  some   delay   between    getting 
out   of   high   school    and  enrolling  in   CLemson,    but   he  graduated 
from    CLemson  about  1916. 

Lage:  And  Clemson   is  in  North   Carolina? 

Kendrick:      Qemson  is   in  South   Carolina.       It   is   the    state's   land    grant 

institution.      At   the   time   it  was  a  military    men's   school.      It 
should  not   be   confused  with   the  University   of   South   Carolina,    but 
it  is  a   state  institution.      Probably  known  more   today   because   of 
its   football    team    than  anything   else. 

After  graduating  from    Clemson,    he  went   to  Iowa  State.      I 
think  one   of   the   professors  whom  he  was  attracted   to,    or  at   least 
had  some  courses  from   at  Clemson,    was  a  botanist  who  arranged  to 
get  him   up  to   Iowa  State  University   for   some   graduate   training. 
I   think  that  was  about   1917   or   1918.      While   up  there,    he  went 
into   the   service   because   of   his   military    training.      That  was   in 
World  War  I,   but  he  never   served  outside   this   country.      The  war 
ended  soon  after  he  was   taken  into   service  as  a   second 
lieutenant. 


At  any   rate,    he  moved  to  Iowa — Ames — and  enrolled  in  Iowa 
State  in  a  graduate   program   of   applied   botany,    which  led  into 
plant   pathology   and  an  interest   in  plant   diseases.      I   think   sone 
of  his  early   graduate  assistantships   involved  summer  work 
eradicating  the  barberry,    which   is  an  alternate  host   for  wheat 
rust.      That  was  a  major   program  in   those   days   to   control  wheat 
rust   in  that  big  wheat  belt   of   the  Midwest.      Wheat  rust  is  an 
interesting  fungus   that   requires  a   different  host   to   complete   its 
life   cycle,    and  one   of    the  early   techniques  of    control    was   to 
interrupt   that  life   cycle   by   destroying  its   alternate  host.       So 


Kendrick:      the   government  employed  a  lot  of  young  men — I   think   probably 

principally  young  men  at   that   time — to  scour   the  countrysides  and 
hoe   and    cut   out    the    barberries. 

Lage:  So  it  was  a   natural   means  of   control. 

Kendrick:      It  was  an  early  biological   control   system  with  the  emphasis  on 
biology. 

Dad's  major  professor  at  Iowa  State  was  I.  E.  Melhus,  who 
was  kind  of  a  crusty  individual,  as  I  remember.  His  secretary 
was  my  mother  [Violet  McDonald]. 

Lage:  Oh  I      We're    getting  into   the    courtship. 

Kendrick:      She  was   born  in   Iowa.      Her  parents  were  also  farmers.      She  was 

born  in  Washington  County,    which   I    think,    as  far  as    I  recall,    is 
down  in  the   southeastern  part  of    the  state.      But   I  never  knew 
that   part   of  her  background.     By   the   time   I  knew    my   grandparents, 
they   were  resident   in  the  town  of  Ames.      Some  time  earlier  they 
had  moved  from  Washington  County  and  were  farming  property  on  the 
edge   of    the   Iowa  State   campus.      The  university   had  purchased 
their  farm  and  farm  house  in  the   course   of   needing,    I   guess, 
additional    land  to  expand.      So  by    the   time   I  was   really 
acquainted  with  them,    they  had  located  themselves  as  residents   of 
Ames,    with  an  address  that's  vividly   fixed  in  my   mind  as  926 
Grand  Avenue.      We  spent  a   good   deal   of    time  with  my  mother's 
parents — more  so   than  we  did  with  my    father's. 


Father's  Early    Career  in  Plant   Pathology 


Kendrick:      They  were  married  in  1919,   and  then  my  father  was  offered  a 
position   at   Purdue   University. 

Lage:  Had  he  finished  his — ? 

Kendrick:     He  had  not  finished  his   doctoral    program,   but   I   think  he  had  a 
master's   degree   by    that   time.      And  so  he  took  the  position   that 
was  offered  to  him   at  Lafayette,    Indiana,    at  Purdue  University. 
It  was  in  Lafayette  where   I  appeared,    when  I  was   born  on  the  21st 
of    October,    1920. 

The  period  of   my  early  life  in  West  Lafayette,    where  we 
lived,    I   can  recall   only   in  snatches,    principally   by   reflecting 
on  conversations  with  my   parents  about   those  days  and  looking  at 
early   photographs.      My  father  was,    as  with  most  first-born 
children,    recording  every   moment   that  he  could  and  so  there  are 
many   early    photographs   of  me. 


Kendrick:      Most  of   those  early  photographs  were  not   taken  with   a  hand-held 

camera  like    I've  got  where   the   focus,    shutter   speed,    and  exposure 
are   all   automatically   set.      The    photographic    sessions  were 
regular  excursions.      We  would  get  into  a  small  wagon  or  walk  over 
to   the  laboratory  where  Dad  worked.      He'd   set   up   the   still    camera 
and  set  everything  in  motion.      It  was  like   a   photographic   studio. 
So.   it  was  not  just  a   snapshot.     But   there  were   some   snapshots, 
too.     taken  on  those  early  Kodak  cameras. 

I  was  the  only  sibling  of   the  family  until   1926.    when   my 
sister   was  born,    also  in  Lafayette. 

Lage:  Were   there   other   siblings   after   that? 

Kendrick:      I   have  a  brother  who  was  born  in  Woodland  after  we  moved  to 
California. 

During  the  period  that   they   were  in  Indiana,    Dad  sought   to 
complete   the  work  for  his   doctorate   degree.      So  he   took  a  leave, 
I  think,  about  1924  or  '25,  and  we  went  to  Ames  for  a  year. 
That's  why  I  have  more  vivid  recollections  about  Ames   than   some 
of    the  other  places  in  my   early   life.      He  completed  his  work  and 
received   his    Ph.D.     degree   about    1925,    I   think. 


Lage: 


In  plant   pathology? 


Kendrick:      In  plant   pathology,    from   Iowa  State  University.      He  minored  in 
bacteriology. 

Then  we  returned  to  Lafayette.      He  had  an  associate  whom   he 
was  working  with  at  Purdue.      His  name  was  Max  W.    Gardner.      They 
did  a  lot   of    their  research  work  together,    but   I   don't   think  they 
did  much  classroom   instruction.      Dad  didn't  hold  a   professorship, 
because  his  appointment   involved  mostly   full-time  research.      He 
was   primarily  handling   the  vegetable   problems.      I   can't  really   be 
certain  about   these   impressions  at   Purdue   because  I  was  less  than 
seven  years    old. 

Lage:  That's  all   right.      We   don't  expect  you  to  remember — 

Kendrick:      You  don't  form   a  lot   of  lasting  memories  at   that  age. 


The  Move   to  Davis,    the  "University   Farm",    1927 


Kendrick:      In  1927,    I  remember.    Dad  had  an  opportunity,    or  an  offer,    to  come 
to  California  and  locate  at   Davis  to   develop  a   plant   pathology 
group  on  the  Davis  campus.      Up  to  that  time,    the  department  was 
here  at  Berkeley   in   the   College   of  Agriculture.      They   tried   to 


Kendrick:      provide   the  needs  for   plant   pathology   on  the   Davis    campus   by 

locating  one   or   two  people   up  there  from   time   to  time  to  teach, 
primarily.      Ralph  E.    Smith  was   chairman  of    the   department  at   that 
time,    and  also  a   significant   figure  in  the  development  of   plant 
pathology   in   the  University   of   California.      Incidentally,    Ralph 
Smith  was  the  administrator  who  really  got  the  Citrus  Experiment 
Station   started   back  in  the  early  1900s.      Dean    [E.    J.]    Wickson 
sent   Ralph  E.    Smith   to   southern  California  to  establish   a 
laboratory  to  take    care   of  lemon  rot  and   a  walnut   blight   problem. 
So  Ralph   E.    Smith,    the  plant   pathologist,    was  the  one  who  got 
agricultural    research  laboratories    going  in   southern   California, 
but    that    digresses. 

Lage  :  He   saw    the  need  to  develop  something  more  active  on  the  Davis 

campus,    it    seems. 

Kendrick:     Well,    he  and  others,    I  assume.      But   it  was   determined  that   the 
University  wanted  a  group,    an  extension   of    the   Department   of 
Plant   Pathology   at  Berkeley,    on  the  Davis   campus  as  it  was 
developing.      And  so  my  father  was   the   one  who  accepted   the 
invitation  to   do   that.      He   remained  as   the  head  and   chair  of    that 
unit   throughout  his  entire   career  at   the  University   of 
California — thirty-three  years,    which   is   something  you  don't   do 
nowadays. 

Lage:  That's   right.      Longevity    that  you  no  longer   see  very   often. 

Kendrick:      Well,    there  were   a  lot   of   changes   that   took   place   over    the  years. 

So  they   packed  up  bag  and  baggage   in  1927   and  by   late  summer 
of    that  year,   we  had  moved   to  Davis   to   start  a  new   life.      I'm 
sure   at   the   time   it   felt  like   they   were  moving  to  the  end  of   the 
earth. 

Lage:  That's  what   I'm   thinking,    even  though   that   pattern  of   movement 

from   Iowa   to   Calif ornia  wasn1 1   uncommon. 

Kendrick:      Well,    that's   true,    but   it  was  a  long  way   from    South  Carolina.      My 
mother's   parents  were  Ohioans,    so   they   had  moved  from   Ohio  to 
Nebraska  and  then  back  to  Iowa.      I   think  they   were  prospecting 
around  trying  to  find  a   piece   of    ground   that  was   productive 
enough    that   they    could  farm   and  survive. 

When  we  first  arrived  in  Davis  we  lived  for   several   months 
in  a   few    rooms  in  a  little  hotel — the  University  Hotel   on  2nd  and 
"B"  Streets.      Later   that  year  we  moved  across   the   street   to  a 
small    house    that's    still   there.      And  then  a   couple  years  later   to 
a  little  larger  house   on  "S"  Street.       In  1930   they   built   a  home 
at  35   College   Park,    a  housing  development   outside   of    the   city 
limits,   where   the  University   faculty   and   staff  were  locating. 


Lage :  How    comfortable   could  a   college    professor  be   at   that  time  or.  the 

salary   of   a   professor? 

I 
Kendrick:     Well,    it  was   pretty   meager. 

Lage:  In  comparison  to  others  in  Davis  and  surrounding  areas? 

Kendrick:     Well,    in  comparison  with  others.    I  never  detected  that  we  were 
skimping  and   saving  and   sacrificing.      We   never  had  anything  tc 
waste,    and  the  humble   origins  of   their  parents  instilled  a 
frugality   in  their  attitude   that  watched   the   spending   pattern 
pretty   closely.      There  was  a  lot  of   canning  of   fresh   fruit.      Both 
of   them  having  a  farm  background  where   they    canned  and   preserved 
and  stored  food  to  last   the  year,    that  was  kind  of   a  way   of   life 
for   my  mother;    she   did   a  lot   of    preserving  and   canning.      Dad  was 
an  avid   gardener;    he  always  had  things    growing. 

My  folks  bought   their  first  automobile  while  we  were    there. 
I  noted  that  he  bought  a  Buick;    it  wasn't  a   new   Buick.    but   they 
bought   a  Buick.     they   didn't   buy   a   Model-T   Ford.      A  1927   Buick  was 
really   quite   a   car. 

So  I   think  that  they   were  living  in  a  style  that  the  rest  of 
the  academic  appointees  were.      But  it  was   a  very   happy    time,    I 
think,   because   it  was  a   period  of   growth  of    the   campus.      There 
were   only   five  hundred   students,   and  about   four  hundred  and  fifty 
were  in  a  two-year  program  called  the  non-degree  program   that  the 
University  at   a  later   date    [1960]    gave   to   Cal    Poly   arv.'    r^l--1..     "You 
take   this   program   because   it  is  not  compatible  with  our  long- 
range   goal."     That   created   a  lot   of    discussion   on   the    campus 
because   the  people  who  were  associated  with  teaching  the  two-year 
program   really   felt   they  were   being  disadvantaged  and   disparaged. 
But   the  view    prevailed  that  because   the  University   of   California 
was  a   degree-granting  institution  it  really    shouldn't    continue 
the  vocational    aspect   of    teaching  which   characterized  the  non- 
degree   program.      The  Davis   campus  was  known  as   the  University 
Farm.       It   wasn't   the   "University   of    California,    Davis"  at   that 
time. 

Lage:  It   didn't  have   the   separate   status,    as   I   understand. 

Kendrick:      No,    it   certainly   didn't.       It  was   tied  very,    very    closely    to 

Berkeley.      You  couldn't  wiggle  without   getting  permission  from 
people  at  Berkeley.      And   that   close   tie  has   a  lot   to   do  with  what 
I    have   observed   over   the  years   as   the  "Davis  attitude,"  relative 
to  Berkeley   or  relative  to  the  rest   of    the  University. 


Lage: 


Should  we   elaborate   on  that,    or  will   that  come  out — ? 


Kendrick:      Well,    I   think  that  will   come  out  later  because   until   I  became  the 
vice-president    I  really    didn't    detect    the    characteristics    of    the 
campuses.      Each   one   is  as   different  and  has  as  much   individual 
character  as    children.      But   there  are   some  lasting  kinds   of 
impressions   of    the  Berkeley-Davis  relationship,    I   think,    that 
account  for  a  lot   of   reactions  which   people  have   difficulty 
explaining;    but   if  you  understand  the  background  and  you  have 
been  around  long  enough  you   can   understand   them. 

Lage:  So,    whereas   maybe  you   didn't   detect   it  when  you  were  living  in 

Davis,    I'm  sure  when  you  were  faced  with  it,    you  understood  it. 

Kendrick:      That's   right.      You  could  make   allowances  for  it  and  not   get  your 
nose  out   of  joint. 

Lage:  Your   father  must   have   experienced  it   directly,    with  his   position. 

Kendrick:      Yes,    he   did.      And  he's   the   origin  of   a  lot   of   my   knowledge  and 
impressions. 


Town  and  Gown  Relationships  in  Davis 


Kendrick:      The   campus,    in  those   late   twenties  and  early   thirties,    developed 
to  a  large   extent  as   a  family.      The  leaders   of   the  various 
academic  units — most  of  whom   have  buildings  named  for  them  now  — 
were  friends  and  colleagues  of   my  family,    and  there  was   a  lot   of 
esprit   de   corps  and   camaraderie.      The  faculty   liked  to  play 
together  as  well   as  work  together.      I   can  recall   spirited 
Softball  games;   they   would  divide   themselves  into  teams  and 
leagues  and  spend  the  summer  playing  softball.      When  that   ran 
out,     they'd   play   volleyball   with   teams  and  a  league   schedule. 
The   socializing  among   the  faculty  was   fairly   extensive.      One   of 
the  principal    indoor   sports  was   card  playing — bridge.      But   the 
town  of  Davis  was  really   dominated   by    the  University.      Other   than 
the   presence   of    the  University,    Davis's  main  reason  for   existing 
was   that  it  was   the  railroad  junction  between  the  Southern 
Pacific's  main  line   that  went   east   to  Chicago  and  the   coast   line 
that  went   north   to   Seattle. 

Lage:  Nothing  else   there. 

Kendrick:      A  little   supplying  of   the  farm   community   there,    but  not 

extensive.      They  had   a  little   downtown  section.      But  if  you  had 
taken  the  University    farm   and  its  activities  away   from  Davis,    it 
would  have  just  been  a  railroad  stop,    with  a   small   supply   and 
trading   center   for  farmers. 


8 


Lage :  Were  your  connections  mainly  with  other  university-related  people 

as  you  grew   up,    rather   than  with  farmers  and   their   children? 

Kendrick:      Almost   exclusively,    because  most  of   my   schoolmates  whom   I  can 

recall  were   children  of   other   people  employed  by   the  University. 
However,    I   had  a  close   chum   through  grade    school   who  was  the 
adopted  son  of    the   owner   of   the   principal   dry    goods  and   grocery 
store  in  town. 

Lage:  That  was   the   town  and  gown  relationship? 

Kendrick:      That  was  the  town  and   gown  relation.       [laughter]      I   used   to   think 
it  was   really   something  special   being  able  to  go  downtown  on 
Sunday  when  the   store  was   closed  and  be   given   store    candy   or 
other  goodies  by   his  mom   or  grandfather,    who  would  be  working 
there.      It  was   sort  of  a  back-stage    type    of   experience. 

Anyway,    my  primary   group  of   colleagues  came  from   the  campus 
community,    although   I  have  to  modify   that   statement  a   bit   because 
another   close   chum   who  had  a  lot  of   influence   on  my   life  as  a 
colleague  was   the   grandson  of   a  farmer   near  Winters.      They   were   a 
bright  family;    the  youngsters  were  very   sharp.      There  were   two 
boys  and  a  girl   in  that  family,    but  Gordon  Furth  was   the   oldest 
one  and  my   chum. 

Gordon  joined  our   class,     I   think,     in  about   the   third   grade. 
I  was  in   the   second   grade  when   I   started  school   in  Davis.      Class 
sizes   averaged   thirty-five   students.      Gordon's    grandfather   and 
father  were  farming  apricots  and  walnuts.      Even  though   they   were 
in  the  Winters   school    district,    they   weren't  happy   with   the 
Winters  school  at  that  time,    so  the    parents    gained   permission  to 
send  their  children  to  Davis.      That  move   resulted  in  a  very    long- 
lasting  and  endearing  friendship   because   the   group   of   kids    I 
played  with  most   liked  to   go   to  the  Furth's  ranch  from   time   tc 
time  and   play   in   that  rural    setting.     But  Gordon  was   a  lead  horse 
in  the  sense   that  he  seemed  to  have  no  problem  getting  good 
grades.      The   competitive   spirit  in  our   group  was   strong  because 
we  wanted  to  get  better   grades   than  he   did.      [laughter]      So   in 
that  relationship,    friendly  as  it  was,    it  was   always   trying   to 
outdo  Furth;   we   couldn't   understand  why   he  was  so  much   scarter 
than  the  rest  of  us. 

Lage:  There  was   a  value   placed  on  academic  achievement,    then. 

Kendrick:      We  had  a  pretty   straightforward  academic  program.      But    I   think 

the  value  system  was  preserved  because  so  many  of  the  youngsters 
were  children  of  University  people.  There  were  about  a  dozen  of 
us  who  really  watched  one  another  and  how  well  we  were  doing. 


Kendrick:      This   is  kind  of   a   sideline,    but   back  in  the   third  grade — it   could 
have  been  the  fourth   grade — I   discovered   that  Gordon  was   reading 
Time   magazine   from    covei    to  cover,    and  I   can  recall   thinking, 
"Why   on  earth  at  an  age   of  about   nine   or   ten,    in  the  fourth 
grade,    was  he  reading  that  magazine   from   cover  to  cover?"     It 
wasn't   until  years  later   I   discovered   that  his   uncle  was   the 
managing  editor  of   Time  magazine.       [laughter] 

Lage:  So  he  wasn't  a   typical   farmboy. 

Kendrick:      I   don't  know   what  you  mean  by   typical    farmboy,    but  Gordon  was 
certainly   far  above   average  in  intelligence. 

Lage:  Now,    what   did  he  go  on  to  do? 

Kendrick:      After  Gordon  graduated  from  high  school  at   Davis  he  went   to 

Berkeley.      He  became   a   certified  public  accountant  and   gained  an 
M.B.A.      He  has  had   a  marvelously   successful    career  in  managing 
shipping  and  mining  companies.      One   of   his   successful 
responsibilities  was  with  Cypress  Mining  Company. 

H 

Kendrick:     Let's    skip   ahead   a  little  bit.      Gordon  was   the  person   I   selected 
as  the  best  man  at  our  wedding,    so  it  has   been  a  long  and 
enduring  relationship. 

He  has  a   famous   brother,    too.      Alan  Furth,   who  was  about   two 
years  younger  than  the   two   of   us,    was    general    counsel   for   the 
Southern   Pacific   Company   and  one   of    the   chief    executives  of   that 
operation.      So  it  was   a  family   of   successes. 

Lage:  I   suppose   having  a  Davis   campus   there  had  quite  an  effect  on 

them,    too;  without  it,    they  may   not  have  achieved — 

Kendrick:      Well,    I'm   not   sure  the  Davis   campus  had  that  much   influence; 
certainly    they   had  enough   native  intelligence   to  succeed  no 
matter  where   they    were   going.      The  interesting  thing  was  that  the 
parents  saw   that  they  were  receiving  less    challenging  instruction 
in  Winters   than  they   would  have  in  Davis.      The  fact   that   they 
were  thrown  in  amongst  youngsters  who  were  from  University 
background  parents,    I   suppose,    had  some   stimulating  effect. 


Religion  and  Politics  in  the  Kendrick  Family 


Lage:  Are  there  other   things  about   the   Davis   setting  or   the  family 

values?      We're  interested  in  religion,    politics,    that  kind  of 
thing.      Does    that  have   a   bearing  on  your    course? 


10 


Kendrick:      Well,    neither  one  had  any   real    twig-bending  influences   on   my 
points  of   view    about   one   thing  or   another.      I   think  I   did  the 
usual;    I  went   to  Sunday   school   regularly   and   then  youth 
fellowship — it  was   called  Christian  Endeavor  in  those   days.      When 
I   got  a  little   older  and  into  the  teenage  years,    Christian 
Endeavor  met  Sundays  evenings,    so  it   provided  another   opportunity 
for  a  night  out  with  my   teenage   friends.      The   sponsors    gave   soce 
great   parties    [chuckles]    so  we  had  a   lot   of    fun.      It  was   a   small, 
social,    Protestant  experience.     Only  a  few  of   my   classmates  were 
Catholics.      The  only   difference   noted  was   that  my    Catholic 
classmates  wouldn't  eat  meat  on   Fridays,    and   they  would   sacrifice 
something  they   ordinarily  ate  or  did  during  Lent.     Aside   from 
that,    the  religious  influences  were   not   dominant,   and   they 
certainly   were  not  a   source   of   discrimination. 

Lage:  Was  politics  a  discussed  subject?     Here  we  are  recalling  the 

Depression  years  as  you  were   growing  up. 

Kendrick:      Yes.      During   the  Depression  years  was   one   of    the    times    I  recall 

the  University    faculty    took  a   salary   cut.      And  that  was  kir.d  of    a 
tense   time.       It   ultimately   got  restored,    but   I    don't   think 
anybody    ever   caught   up.      I   recall   overhearing  conversations   on 
how    my  parents  were  really   going  to  have   to   tighten   up.      So  it 
was  a   time   of    real   belt   tightening.      Of   course,    my    folks   built 
their  home  in  College   Park — a  four-bedroom,    two-bathroom  home  in 
a   choice    piece   of   real   estate — for  about   $6,000.      They  bought   the 
property,   which  amounts   to   two  lots,    for  five  hundred   dollars. 
This  was   in  1930. 

My    mother   still   lives  in  the  house   she  and  Dad  built   on  that 
property.      The   percentage  appreciation  that  has   taken   place    over 
this  period  is  almost   obscene.      Similar  homes  and  property    in 
College   Park  are   now    selling  for   several   hundred   thousand 
dollars,    presumably  because   of    the  choice   location.      The 
appreciation  in  most   cases   is   in  excess   of  3000    percent. 

Lage:  Was  the  New  Deal   accepted  by  your  family? 

Kendrick:      I   don't  ever  recall   hearing  a  lot    of    discussion.       There    could 
have  been  conflict  in  my    family  because  my   mother  had  a 
conservative  Republican  background  and  my   father  had  a   Democratic 
background.      Mother   never   seemed  to  be  very   assertive  in  terms  of 
her  politics.      She  also  came  from  a  strict   Methodist   family  where 
Sunday   was   a  quiet   church-dominated   day.      There  were  no  cards   in 
my   grandparents'  home.      My  father  was  a   smoker,    and   so  was  one   of 
my   mother's  brothers.      The   use   of    tobacco  was  also   regarded  as  a 
sin  by  my  maternal   grandmother.      I  remember   times  when  my  father 
and  uncle  would   go   down  to   the  basement   to  smoke.      I   don't  know 
why   they   thought  that  was  avoiding  the   obvious   because   the   smoke 
would   come   ou      through   the  house.      1    guess   they    felt   they    could 


11 


Kendrick:  get  out  of  "smell-shot"  in  the  basement.  At  least  it  had  a  coal- 
like  smell  because  there  was  lots  of  coal  stored  in  the  basement, 
which  was  used  to  heat  the  house. 

Although  my    father  was  a  Democrat,    I  can't  recall  whether  he 
thought  Roosevelt  was   a  real    savior   or  not.      His  work  ethic,    I 
think,    was   such   that  he  was  not  terribly  sympathetic  with  some  of 
the  welfare   society  programs.      But   I   think  he   generally  was   a 
supporter   of    Roosevelt   because    the   country   needed  a   change. 
There  was  never  really   a  lot   of   political    discussion  in  our  home. 

Lage:  One   of   those   things   best  not   discussed  at  some  point. 

Kendrick:      I   think   part   of   it  was   my   mother's  attitude.       She  just    didn't 

care   to  engage   in  that  kind  of   a  discussion.       So  their  political 
background  really   didn't  have  any   impact.      As   a  matter    of   fact, 
my    father's   politics    didn't   influence    me   because    I've   been  a 
registered  Republican  all    my  life.      I   think   the  reason   I 
registered  Republican  is   that  by   the  time   I   got  ready    to  vote, 
the  Republican  candidates  appealed  to  me  more   than  the   Democratic 
candidates,     so   I   became   a  Republican.      And  you   couldn't   really 
determine  from   my  voting  record   through  the  years  exactly   what 
party    I   affiliated  with. 

Lage:  So  you  were  more  independent,    even  though  you  registered 

Republican? 

Kendrick:      I   registered  Republican  just   to  have  a  party,    but   I — 
Lage:  Just  to   be    contrary   in  Berkeley,    I  suspect.       [laughs] 

Kendrick:      Yes,     I   feel   disenfranchised  in  Berkeley.      Being  a   Republican  is 
probably   a   useless  registration  in  Berkeley.      But   my  leanings 
tend  to  be   a  little  more  conservative   than  liberal,    although   I 
think   that  it's  really    a   pick-and-choose   attitude.      No    party 
label    really   satisfies  me.      It   depends   on  the  issue  whether   I'm   a 
conservative   or  a  liberal.       I    can't   buy    all    the  liberal    causes, 
and    I    can't   buy    all    the   conservative    causes. 


Schooling:      Academics,    Athletics,    and  Evelyn 


Lage: 


Kendrick 


You  talked  a  little   bit  about  schooling- 
there  any   early   interest  in  academics? 


-not  in   depth — but  was 


In  elementary  school   in  Davis,    I  recall    that   I  was  just   a  little 
better   than  average   as  a   student.      I  worked  like   a  demon  to   try 
and  match  Gordon,   but   I  was  never  able   to   do   so.      There  were   a 
couple   of    smart   girls  in  my    class  also,    and  I   couldn't   catch   up 


12 


Kendrick:     with  them  either.      They  were   daughters  of  University  faculty 

fathers.      Probably   no  more   than  half  of   the  class  members  were 
from  University   families,   and  it  was  a   good,    competitive   class. 
Ultimately,    thirty-eight  of   us   graduated   from    high   school.      For 
those  interested  in  numerology,    it  is   interesting  to  observe   that 
the   thirty-eight  members   in  the  class   graduated  in  the  year  of 
1938,    fifty  years  ago  next  year,    which   seems  like  a  long,    long 
time    ago. 

I  recall   that  my  parents  were  strict  about  my  paying 
attention  to   grades,   and   if   I   slipped   down  and   got  a   C  or  a   D  in 
a   subject,   we  visited  the   teacher   to  find  out  why.      Those  were 
not   particularly   pleasant  occasions,   and   I  was  subject   to 
corporal   punishment  at  home.      My    mother   didn't   spank;   my    father 
believed  that  a   good   tanning  would   straighten  out   the   thinking, 
fairly   easily.      So   I  had  my   share  of   spankings. 

Lage:  This  kind  of  academic  achievement  was   definitely  encouraged  at 

home. 


Kendrick:      It   certainly  was.      No  excuse   for  not   doing  your  best,    which,    I 

would   say,   left  a  lasting  impression.      I   came   to   believe   early    ir. 
school    that  if   it  was  worth  the  time,    it  was  worth  giving  your 
best  to  do  it.      I   guess   I    developed  a   perfectionist  attitude. 

Life  really  began  to  open  up  for  me  in  junior  high   school — 
seventh  and  eighth   grade.      My   seventh  and  eighth   grade   classes 
were  in  the  high   school   building.      We  were  kind  of  like   a  second 
thumb  on  the  hand,    but  at  least  we  were  in  the  environment   of    the 
high   school.      We  had  a  very   good  physical    education  instructor 
who  was   also   the  high  school   athletic   coach — coach   of    everything. 
His   name  is  Dewey   Halden,    and  he  is  still  living.      Dewey   would 
spend  his   time  in  the   gymnasium   on  the  weekends.      He  made  it 
available   to  all  youngsters  in  Davis  who  otherwise  might  be 
running  around  and   getting  into   trouble.      Dewey   organized 
basketball   games  with  other  schools   so  from   about  the  seventh 
grade  on  the  world  of  athletics  became  more  important   than 
anything  else,    as  far  as   I  was   concerned.      His  encouragement   of 
this  early  athletic  development  was   not  all    altruism.      He  liked 
to  win.       [laughter]      And  his  high   school    football   and  basketball 
teams   usually  won   their   conference   titles. 

Lage:  But   he  just  was  working  on  the  junior   high  level? 

Kendrick:      He  was  working  with  these  kids — seventh  and  eighth   graders — 

getting  them    started  in  a   competitive,    organized  sporting  event, 
largely   basketball,    but   also  a  little   touch  football.      The   senior 
minister  of   our  community   church  was  a  big,    tall   fellow,    who  had 
a  more  than  passing  interest  in  basketball.      His  name  was   the 
Reverend  Williams,    and  Pewey   asked  him  to  help   coach  a  team   of 


13 


Ken d rick  : 


Lage: 
Ken d rick: 
Lage: 
Ken d rick: 


junior  high   school  youngsters.       I  was   part   of    that    group.      That 
was  my   earliest   exposure  to  competitive  athletics,    and  I   thought 
life  was  really    going  to   be  fun  and   games. 

So   the   seventh   and  eighth  grade   passed  in  due   course  without 
any  lasting  impression  except  these  years  opened   up  a   new   world 
other   than  one  which  was   strictly  academic.      Even  though  Davis 
High  School   then  had  a  relatively   small   student   body  and   served 
a   district   outside   of   the   city    limits,    it  offered  a  wide  range   of 
extracurricular  activities.      The   school    also  took   great   pride   in 
the  fact   that  it   graduated  a   significant  number  of  youngsters  who 
went  on  to  college  and  who  were  automatically  accepted  into   the 
University    of   California.       Since   it  had  a   reputation  to  maintain, 
it    conducted   a  rigorous  academic   program,    too. 

And  did  the  athletics   continue   in  high   school? 

They   sure   did. 

Did  you  play   basketball? 

I  felt  during  most  of  my  high  school    career   that   the  most 
important   part  of    the  day   began  about   two  o'clock — after   I 
finished  with  my  formal   classes.      I   played  football   and 
basketball,    and  since  we   didn't  have  a  baseball   team    that 
amounted  to  anything,    because   Dewey  Halden   didn't   seem   to  be 
interested  in  baseball,    we  had  track  and  field.      It  was  on  the 
track  field  where   I   developed   some   degree   of   individual   skill, 
but  we'll  get   to  that  in  a  moment.      I   really   enjoyed  playing 
football.      I  played  football   from   the  time   that    I  was   a  freshman 
until    I   graduated,    and  managed  to  get  through  without   doing  any 
more   damage  to  myself   than  breaking  a  front   tooth,      I   played  in 
the  back  field  all   of    the   time,    and  our   teams  were  quite   good. 
We  won  our  league   championship  most  of   the   time,   although  we 
couldn't   advance   very    much   further   than  that  because   the  bigger 
schools  just   beat   up  on  us.      But  we  were   kings  in  our   own  league. 
I   played  regularly   in  the  back  field  on  the  team   from   my 
sophomore  year   on. 

Basketball  was  fun,  and  I  enjoyed  it  also.  It  was  easier  to 
match  comparable  skills  because  our  teams  were  divided  into  A,  B, 
and  C  groups,  depending  on  the  athletes'  age,  height,  and  weight. 

In  track   I   seemed  to   be   a  reasonably   springy   runner,    so   I 
high- jumped  and  hurdled.      My  junior  year  was  the  best  year  of   my 
track  achievement.      I  had   developed  a   capacity   to  run  the  high 
hurdles  better   than  most   people  in  northern  California,    so  I  won 
most  of   the  races  that  year.      I    can  recall    coming  home  from   the 
first   invitational    meet,    in  my   junior  year,    on  a   Saturday 
afternoon.      "My   father   said,    "Well,    how    did  you   do?"     And    I    said, 
"I   won   two   races."     "Well,     I'll   be    damned,"  he   said.       [laughter] 


Kendrick:      I   think  both   of    us  were  surprised   that    I  had  any   kind   of   ability 
to  do   that  because    I  was   not   physically   constructed  to  run  the 
high  hurdles  very  well.      In  spite  of   being  shorter   than  most 
hurdlers,    I  had  developed  a   technique   to  get  over  them    rapidly 
without  much  waste  motion.     Dad  and  mother  were  avid  followers  of 
my   high   school    athletic  program.      They   seldom   missed  a  football 
or  a  basketball   game   or  a   track  meet  in  which  I   participated. 

It  was  my  junior  year  when  I  won  the  northern  California 
high  hurdle   championship,    which  qualified  me  to   go  to  the 
California  state  meet.      This  was  quite  an  honor  because   Davis  had 
not  qualified  more   than  one  or  two   people  for   the   state  meet   ever 
before.      Dewey   Halden  and  I   traveled  to  Long  Beach   for   the  meet, 
and  it  was  a  thrill   of   my  young  life  to  go   down   there  with  my 
coach.      I   found  out   that  I  was   going  to  be   racing  with  some  of 
the    same   people    I  had   been  beating  all  year.      However,    I  was   to 
experience    one   of   life's   most  humbling  lessons.      I   stumbled  on 
the  first  hurdle  in   the  opening  heat  and   didn't  qualify    for    the 
final    race.      It  was  a  bitter  disappointment   that   I   had  to  endure 
because  the  young  man  who   I  had   been   beating  in  every    race   all 
year  came   in  second  in  the  finals. 

Lage:  So  you  felt  you  could  have  been  first — 

Kendrick:     Well,    not  first.      The  winner  was  clearly  much  better  and  more 

outstanding   than  anybody   else.      But    I  figured   that    I  would  have   a 
cinch  second.     That  was  an  important  event  in  my   life,    because   I 
had  to  deal  with  defeat   caused  by  subpar   performance   rather   than 
losing  because    of   being  outclassed. 

Lage:  This  was  in   '37? 

Kendrick:      In  1937.     The  athletic  program  was  good,   but  that  was  not  all  of 
the  extracurricular   offerings.      Davis  High  had   a  whole   range   of 
activities;   we  had  a   drama  program,    an  orchestra,    a  chorus, 
student   government,   and  a  publications    group,   which   published   a 
monthly   student   paper  and  the  annual. 

Lage:  How  large  would  the  school  have  been? 

Kendrick:      We  had  about   150   students.      Four   classes — four   grades — and  about 
150   students. 


Lage:  That's  small. 

Kendrick:      What  it  meant  was   that  each  of   us  did  everything.      When  football 
season  ended,   we  put  away   the  football   uniforms  and   then  we 
became  basketball   players;   and  when  basketball   season  ended,    we 
put   those   uniforms   away   and   became   the   track   squad.      In  addition, 
we   squeezed  in  the  extra   time   for   ;lrama,    chorus,    orchestra, 
student    council,    student    government,    and  publications.       I 


15 


Kendrick:      participated  in  all    of    these,    so   I  had  a  high  school    that  was 
busy    from   morning  until   night.      It  was  a   rich,    enjoyable 
experience  and   a  lot   of   fun. 

Lage:  And  the  academics  kept   up? 

Kendrick:      Well,    surprisingly,    the  academics   improved.      I  got  through  high 

school  with  a   pretty    good  record — not   the   best  in  the   class,    that 
belonged   to  Gordon  Furth,    but   it  was   pretty    good.      All   of    the   C's 
and  D's    disappeared,    and   the   A's  and   B's    came   back   because    I 
studied.      Good   grades   didn't   come  all   that  easy    for  me.      To 
compensate   I  would  devote  my  weekends  to  studying  my   course  work 
a  week  ahead  so   that   I  would  have  the  freedom   of   the  evenings  and 
the   afternoons   to  pursue   the  athletics  and  other  activities.       I 
worked   during  spare   times  and  in  the  summers  by  watering  people's 
lawns  or  taking  care  of   their  animals  when  they   were   on  vacation 
to  accumulate  some  spending  money.      My   main  source   of 
recreational  funds  was   gained  by  working  at   the  University   during 
summers.      Dad  always  provided  the  basic  necessities  of   food  and 
clothing  for   the    children.      So  all    I   needed  was   spending  money. 

I  have  not  yet  mentioned  that   the  most  positive  influence  in 
my  life   occurred  in  high  school;    Evelyn  joined   my    class   in  1934. 
Her  maiden  name  was  Evelyn  Henle. 

Lage:  So  Evelyn   goes  way   back,    too. 

Kendrick:      She  goes  way   back,    too.      She  came  from   a  farming  family  that 

farmed  dryland   grain  between  Winters  and  Davis,    a  little   closer 
to  Davis  than  Winters,    so   she  automatically  qualified  for  the 
Davis  Unified  School   District.      Her  father's   name  was   Albert 
Ludwig  Henle,    and  her  mother's   name  was  Lura  Wicks  Henle.      Her 
first  eight  years  of  school  were   spent  in  a   one-room,    fully 
integrated,    multiple-classed  school   that  was  named  the  Fairf  ield 
School.      The  only  teacher  in   this   school  was   the  wife   of   Dewey 
Halden,    my   high   school    athletic   coach.       [laughter]      Davis  had  a 
population  of  about  one  thousand  when  we  moved   there  in  1927,    so 
it   should  not  have  been  surprising  to  find  many   close 
relationships  among  people  with  whom  we   came  in  contact  in  that 
community. 

Lage:  It  was   an  interesting  community,    though,    with  a  population  of   one 

thousand;   but  with   the   presence   of   a   university,    it  must  not  have 
been  the  typical    small    town. 

Kendrick:      You  are   right,    it   gave  it  a   special    character.      During  most   of   my 
high   school   period,    Evelyn  was  merely  a  classmate.      It  was  about 
the  end  of  our   senior  year  when  we   began  to   see   one  another  with 
a  little  more   serious   intent   than  just   dating  for  a  party.      I 
liked  many   of    the   girls  and  wasn't  about   to  be   serious  about  any 


16 


Kendrick:      particular  one  for  a  while.      By    the    time   that  we  had   graduated   I 
stopped  dating  other   girls,    and  we  had  a  steady   relationship  from 
then  on. 

The   spring  of   1938 — the  year  we  graduated  from   high  school — 
her  father  had  a  farm  accident.      A  disc   rolled   back  on  his   leg, 
and  it  had  to  be   amputated.      That   event   disrupted  her   plans  to   go 
on  to  college;    she  had  to  go  to  work  and  provide   some 
remuneration  for  herself  as  well   as  for  her  family.      She  went  to 
work  in  the  Bank  of  Davis  as  a   teller/ clerk.      So,    during  the 
period  that  I  was  an  undergraduate  student  at  Berkeley,    she  was 
working  in  Davis  at   the  Bank   of    Davis. 

Lage :  Had  she  intended  to  go  on  to  Berkeley,    also? 

Kendrick:      I   don't   know.      She   probably  had  intended   to   go  on   to   school    in 
Davis  where  her  older  sister,    Lura  Alleyne,    had  gone. 

I  can't  recall  any   particular  occasion  when  we  reached   a 
decision  to  marry  each  other,    but  we  sort  of  knew    it  would  work 
into  that  relationship  eventually.      We  were  married  about  a  week 
after   I   graduated  from   Berkeley,    on  May   17,    1942,    in  a  lovely 
ceremony  held  in  the  yard  of  her  family   home   on  the  farm.      Guess 
who  was  my  best  man?     Gordon  Furth  was  again  an  important  part  of 
my   life.     However,    this   time   I   came  out  ahead   of   him.     Gordon  had 
also  been  a   student  at  Berkeley. 


Entering  UC  Berkeley.    1938;     Bowles  Hall   Resident 


Lage: 


Kendrick: 


Let's  turn  now   to  your  experience  at  Berkeley. 
choose  Berkeley? 


Why   did  you 


Well,    my   choice   for  Berkeley   really  was  made   on  the  basis  of 
looking  briefly  at  three  schools:     one  was  Davis,   and  there  was 
Stanford  and  Berkeley.      I  w  as  attracted   to  Stanford  but   realized 
it  was  pretty   impractical  because   of    the  expense.      I  was   not 
offered  any   scholarships,    so  it  looked  like   a  little   too  much   of 
a  financial   obligation  for  my    parents.     Berkeley   was   the   choice 
because    I   didn't  want   to  go   to  Davis.      I   felt   that   the   close 
friendships   that  existed  between  faculty  members  and  my  high 
school   notoriety   was  not  going  to  allow   me  to  stand  on  my   own 
feet,    so  I   chose  Berkeley.      I   also  recognized   the  fact   that  it 
was   regarded  as  an  achievement   to  get   into  Berkeley.      I   had 
managed  to  pass   the  Subject  A  examination,    which  was  a  surprise 
to  some   people,    including  me,    but   nevertheless   gratefully 
accepted. 

If 


17 


Ker.drick:      The  other   thing  that  made   coming  to  Berkeley  attractive  was   my 
acceptance   as   a   resident   of  Bowles  Hall   as  a  freshman.      There 
were  only   a  few   freshmen  admitted  to  Bowles  at   that   time.      The 
policy    in  those   days  was   different   than  it  is  today  because  once 
you  were  admitted,   you  stayed  as  long  as  you  were  enrolled  as  an 
undergraduate  if  you  wanted  to.      Bowles  was  a  living  arrangement 
that  had  no  rival,    in  my  judgment. 

Lage:  Did  you  know   about   it  in  advance? 

Kendrick:      Yes,    I   did,    because  Rose  Gilmore  was   the  resident  manager.      Her 
husband  w  as  a   professor   on  the  Davis   campus.      I   think  that  fact 
helped  a  bit  in  being  selected,    because   there  was  lots   of 
competition  for  acceptance.      It  was  almost  like   applying  for  a 
scholarship.      It  was  necessary  to  secure  recommendations  from 
reliable   people.      That  first  year  my    roommate  was  Gene   Ireland. 
There  was  a  bit  of   irony   in  this   situation  because  Gene  went   to 
school    in  Winters.      I  knew    him  slightly  in  high  school  because  we 
opposed   one  another   in  our  athletic    contests. 

At  Berkeley,    I  enrolled  in  the  premed  major,    as  did  Gene,    so 
we  started  down  the   same  academic  path  in  Bowles  Hall  as 
roommates.      Bowles  was   constructed  so  each  resident  had  a  private 
bedroom  with  a  larger  room  between  the  two  private  bedrooms  which 
was   used  as  a   common  living  room.      So,    two  of   us  had  three  rooms. 
All   of  the  rooms  on  the  front   of   the  building  had  fabulous  views 
of    the  Bay   Area  and  San  Francisco.      As  freshmen,    however,    we  had 
back  rooms,    and  we  had  to  wait  for  our   seniority   to    grow   before 
we   could  progress   to  the  view-rooms. 

Lage:  The  living  arrangements  were  luxurious    compared   to  today's 

standards. 


Kendrick: 


Lage  : 


Kendrick: 


You  could  never  find  that  kind  of  living  accommodations  from 
University   housing  today.      The   other   thing  that  made  it 
attractive  was  the  food  service.      All   the  meals  were  prepared  in 
the  hall's   own  kitchen,    and   they  were  fabulous,    good  as  well   as 
generous. 


The  hall   was   relatively   new    then,    wasn't  it? 
built  in  the   thirties. 


I  thought  it  was 


I   think  it  was   relatively  new. 
shape   than  it  is  today. 


It  was  certainly   in  much  better 


Professor    [James  D.]    Hart   donated  money    to  build  a  library 
as  a  memorial   to  his  parents  while   I  was   there.      He   also   stocked 
it  with   a  basic   collection  of    representative  literature.      It   was 
a  magnificent  addition  to   the  living  quarters.      Another 
remembrance    of  Bowles  was  the  quality   of   the  student  residents, 
who  later  became  quite  well   known  and  successful.      At   the   time, 


18 


Kendrick:      however,    they  were  just  ordinary   classmates,    or  at  least   that  was 
the  way    it   seemed  to  me.      I  knew   very   little  about  most  of    their 
backgrounds,    although  I  knew    there  were   a  lot   of   San   Franciscans 
in  various   classes.      My  Bowles   classmates  included  Peter  Kaas, 
Eugene  Kilgore,    Bill    Coblentz,    Dan  Koshland,    Dick  Goldman,    Stan 
McCaffrey,    and  Jim  Schwabacher,    to  name  only  a  very   few   who 
became   prominent  in  later  life. 

Lage:  What  was  the  line  between  Bowles  people  and  fraternity   people? 

Kendrick:      There  was  no  line.      We  were   part   of    the   "non-org's" — organized 
non-org's.      We  engaged  in  a  fair  amount  of   campus   politics.      We 
had  some   campus  politicians  among  us,    but  none,    following  Stan 
McCaffrey,    during  my  years  at  Bowles  succeeded  in  being  elected 
to   the   presidency    [of    the  Associated  Students].      We   ran 
candidates   for   the  student   council   and  various   other  elective 
offices.      Our  candidates  tended  to  affiliate  with   the 
fraternities'    candidates.      We  would   canvas   the  frats  and  try    to 
make  alliances  so  that  we  were   treated  a  bit  like  a  fraternity. 
However,   we  were  never  really  accepted  as  a  fraternity.      For  ore 
thing,    there  were  108  of  us;  we  were  larger  than  all    of    the 
frats.      Secondly,    the  Bowles   students   did  not   participate    1  . 
selecting  the  members  of   the  hall.      I  visited 
fraternities  and  had  friends  in  a  few    houses,    but  I  was  never 
seriously   tempted  to  move  from  Bowles.      No   physical   living 
situation  could  match   that  of  Bowles  Hall,    and  the  companionship 
at  Bowles  seemed  as   good  as   the   alternatives.      The  environment  at 
Bowles  also  encouraged  good  scholarship,    to  which  by   that  time   I 
was   committed.      Another  thing  that   changed  my   attitude  about 
fraternity   life  was  my   interest  in  Evelyn.      I  wasn't  really 
looking  for  opportunities  for  a  heavy   social  life.      The    social 
program   at  Bowles  Hall   was  active  enough   for  most  of   us.      Evelyn 
would  come  to  Berkeley   for  the  appropriate   events,    so   I   always 
had  a   date  when  I  wanted  one. 

Lage:  How   did  you  choose   the   premed  program? 

Kendrick:      I    really    don't   know.       I   think  the  attractiveness  of    practicing 
medicine   seemed  glamorous  to  me.      I  realized  also  that  it  was   a 
respected  and  rewarding  profession,    both  monetarily  and  self- 
satisfying.      I   think   I   saw   it  as   a  means   of   establishing  a 
successful    relationship  with  members  of   a  small   community.      So 
medicine  seemed  to  be  where   I  wanted  to  dedicate   my   life. 

Eugene    Ireland,    my    first   roommate,    became   a  pediatrician. 
He  established  his   practice  in  Santa   Monica.      I  had  four 
different   roommates  during  my   residency   in  Bowles.      One   of   them 
was  another  premed  named  Jack  Dykes,    now   deceased,  who  was  a 
thoracic  surgeon  who   practiced  in  Bakersf  ield.      He  went   to 
medical   school  at  Northwestern  University.      I  roomed  with  him 
during  our   sophomore  year.      Then  I   roomed  one  year  with  Bob  Crum, 


19 


Kendrick:      one   of   my  Davis  High  School   classmates,   who   came  from  a  farm 

family  near  Winters.  My  senior  year  I  roomed  with  another  farm 
boy  named  Latane  Sale,  pronounced  "Latnee."  He  was  from  a  farm 
near  Red  Bluff. 


Undergraduate  Education  from   Top  Faculty   Members 


Kendrick:      I   stuck  with  the  premed  program   for  two  years.      Premeds   generally 
took   the    same    courses,   and   class   sections   tended  to   group 
students   depending  on  where   they    ranked  in  the  class.      I   found 
myself    generally   grouped  with   the   top-ranked   students. 
I   seemed  to  have   caught   the  fire  of   academic  stick-to-itiveness 
by    that    time,    so   I  spent   a  lot   of    time   studying  very   diligently; 
the   grades  responded   correspondingly.      My   undergraduate  education 
was  really  quite   good.      For  a   general   science   background,    the 
premed  program   couldn't  have  been  better   suited.      I  was  in  the 
College  of  Letters  and  Science,    which   gave  me  an  opportunity    to 
pursue   a  bachelor   of   arts   degree.      It  also   gave  me   a   chance   to 
take  history  and  English  and  a  number   of   electives.      My 
undergraduate  instructors  were  all  well  known  members  of 
Berkeley's  faculty   in  later  years,    just   the  way   it  ought   to   be 
nowadays,    but   it   isn't.      I  had  chemistry   1A-B   from   Professor 
[Joel]    Hildebrand  and   organic   chemistry  from    Professor    [C.    W.] 
Porter,    quantitative   analysis  from   Professor    [Wendell  M.]    Latimer 
and  English  was  from   Professor  James  D.   Hart,    now  with  The 
Bancroft  Library.      He  was  just   starting  out   on  his   faculty 
career.      He  is   the   Professor  Hart  who   gave   the  memorial  library 
to  Bowles  Hall   while   I  was  a  resident  there. 

My  zoology  1A  instructor  was   Professor    [Sol]    Light,    and   then 
in  spring  of    that  year  there  was  a  brand  new   assistant  professor 
by    the   name   of   Richard  Eakin,   who  taught   my  zoology  IB.      I   took 
plant    physiology    from    Professor  A.    R.    Davis,    and  history   of 
western   civilization  from    Professor  Herbert  Bolton. 

Lage :  You  had  quite  a  background. 

Kendrick:      In  zoology   I  took  a   course  from    the  famous    geneticist   Professor 
[Richard]    Goldschmidt,    and  in  botany    I   had  a   good   course   in 
genetics  from   Professor    [T.    Harper]    Goodspeed.      By   the   beginning 
of   my  junior  year  I  was  becoming  disillusioned — not  with 
medicine,    but  with  my   student   colleagues  who  were  headed  into 
medicine.      Even  in  those   days,    it  was  a   cut-throat   operation.      I 
said  if   these  are   the   kinds   of   people  who  are   going  into 
medicine,    I'm   not  so   sure   that   I  want   to   continue   in  medicine.      I 
was  really   disillusioned  about  what  you  had   to   do  to   get   the 
grades   to   get  into  med  school. 


20 


Lage: 


Highly    competitive. 


Kendrick:     Yes.      And  I   didn't  feel    that  it  ought  to  be   that  way. 


Lage: 


Even   though  you,   yourself,   were   getting  good   grades. 


Kendrick:     Oh,    I  was   getting  adequate  grades,    I   think  they    would  have  been 
considered  as  acceptable.      I  just   didn't  like  what    I    saw. 

At  about  this   same  period  of   disillusionment  with  the  pretned 
"crowd,"   my   father   said  to  me   one   day,    "I   think   that  any   well 
educated  person  should  have  at  least  a  minimal  knowledge   of 
botany — plants."     And  I   said  to  myself,    "Well,    he's   supporting  me 
in  school,    the  least   I  can  do  is  take   one   or  two  courses  that  he 
thinks  are  important."     I   think   I   showed  a   certain  amount   of 
maturity   and  wisdom.      [laughter]      So  I  took  a  botany   course  in  my 
j  unior  year. 

Lage:  Who  was  the  professor   then? 

Kendrick:      I   don't  remember  who   gave   that   beginning  botany    course.      I    can 

remember  plant  physiology  being  taught  by   Professor  A.    R.    Davis, 
and  it  may  have  been  that  Davis  was   the  first   teacher   I  had  for 
botany.     There  was  a  laboratory   that  went  with  it,    and  even 
though  it  wasn't  a  piece  of   cake,    it  was  no  problem.      The   grades 
came  easily.      And  then  I  became   attracted  to   genetics,    so   I 
started  taking  all    the   genetics    courses    I    could  find. 

Lage:  Was  this  plant  genetics,    or  just — ? 

Kendrick:     Just  any   genetics.      There  weren't   all    that  many    courses   offered 
in  those  years,    anyway. 

Lage:  Genetics  must   have  been  a  very  different  thing  from  what  it  is 

now. 

Kendrick:     Oh,    indeed  it  was.      Then  it  was  mating  plants  and  figuring  out 
the   characteristics   of   inheritance,    studying   the   phases   of    cell 
division,    and  observing  the  actions  of   chromosomes.      It  was   still 
a  young  science,    so  it   didn't  have   a  lot   of    background 
information  relative   to  other  fields   of   botany.      The  genetics 
department  was  in  the  College   of  Agriculture,    and  it  was   there    I 
came  in  contact  with  Professor    [Ernest  E.]    Babcock,    Professor 
[Roy]    Clausen.    Dr.    [Everett]    Dempster,    and  another  beginning 
assistant   professor,    G.   Ledyard  Stebbins,    who  later  moved  to 
Davis.      His   specialty  was   the   study   of    evolution   of    plants. 
There  are  a  lot  of   interesting  stories  about  him.     He  was  just  as 
eccentric  as  an  assistant   professor  as  he   continued  to  be  all    the 
rest  of   his  career.      He  was  fun.      We  never  really  knew  where  we 
were  in  his   course  because  he   never   gave   us  an  examination   until 
the   final.       [laughter]      So  he  was  a  mystery. 


21 


Kendrick:      I  took  all    the    genetics    courses   that  were   offered  by    that 

department.      It  was   a   field   that  really    interested  me.      Now.    when 
I  decided  as  a  junior   that   I  was  not   going  to   go  on  to   premed,    I 
began  looking  around  at  majors  which  would  allow   me  to  graduate 
in  the  four  years   that   I  had   thought   I  was   going  to   devote  to   my 
undergraduate   career.      I  was  also  getting  fairly   serious  about 
wanting  to  get  married  at   the  end  of   this   period,    and   I  really 
didn't   see   my   pursuit   of    medicine  as  offering  a  lot  of 
opportunity  to  be  married  while  attending  med  school.      That   also 
had  a   certain  amount   of    influence   on  my  decision  to  change 
majors.      I   discovered,   with   the  help  of   Professor  Adriance 
Foster,    who  was  a  botanist  and  my  advisor,    that  there  was  a  major 
called  general  curriculum,   which  seemed  to  fit  what   I  needed. 
General   curriculum  was  a  major  which  required  thirty-six  upper 
division  units  spread  among  three  subjects  with  a  limit   of   no 
more   than  twenty  units  in  any   one   subject.      I  had  taken  or 
planned  to  take  a  number   of   courses  in  botany,  zoology  and 
genetics,    in  following  my   interest  in  genetics,    so  I  spread  my 
general  curriculum  program   among  those   three  subjects. 

In  later  years  it  was  always  a  little  difficult  to  explain 
when  I  was  asked  what  my  major  was.      When  I  replied,    "general 
curriculum,"  the   reply  generally   was,    "Well,    what's   that?" 
[laughter]      We'll   get  into  another  interesting  episode  as  we   get 
into  my  military  career,    which  is  related  to  my  undergraduate 
major.     But  it  fit  what   I  needed  to  a   tee,   so   I  filled  out   my 
undergraduate  years  with  courses   in  botany,    zoology,    and 
genetics,    having  already   satisfied   the  English  and  history 
requirements  for   the  Letters  and  Science  general   education 
requirement,    I  devoted  the  rest   of   my  undergraduate  years  to 
getting  a   good  education.     During  this  time  I  also  took  some 
entomology  and  mycology,    in  anticipation  of   my   graduate  school 
program. 

Lage:  Were  many   of    these   subjects  in  the  College   of  Agriculture? 

Kendrick:      The  mycology  and  the  genetics   courses  were.      I  also  was 

stimulated  into  good  performance  by   the  fact  that  a  few   courses  I 
took  were  heavily   dominated  by   graduate   students. 

Let's   digress   a   little  bit.      In  the  late   thirties,    graduate 
students  began  to  enroll  at  Davis  in   plant   pathology  and  my 
father,    characteristic   of   his   relationship  with  his  faculty   and 
staff,    treated  them  like  family.      In  those  early  days,    plant 
pathology   at  Davis  had  only  one   or   two  graduate   students,    and 
they  were  incorporated  into  the   department  as   part   of   the  family. 
One  of    those  early  graduate  students  was  Jack  Oswald,    who  came  to 
Davis   from  De   Pauw  University  in  Indiana.      Jack  didn't  work 
directly  with  my   father,    but  he  had  a  close  relationship  with  him 
because  Dad  was  the  grand  patron  of    that   department.      Jack  was   a 
very   smart  and  talented  young  man  who  had  had  an  illustrious 


22 


Kendrick:      career  as  an  undergraduate.     He  was   a  member   of   Phi  Beta  Kappa, 
selected  to  the  academic  Ail-American  football  team,    full  of   fun 
and  very  naive.      So  he  was   the   brunt   of   a  lot   of    practical  jokes. 
In  those   days  you  could  not  get  all   of    the  courses  you  needed  for 
the   Ph.D.    degree  majors  at   Davis;   you  had   to  enroll   at  Berkeley 
to  take   some   courses.      One  of    the  years  that  Jack  was  in  Berkeley 
was   my  junior  year.     Because   I  had  not  yet   completed  Botany  1A. 
which  was  a  prerequisite  for  all   courses  in  botany  except  one 
course,    I  wound  up  that  year   taking  Botany  1A  and  a   plant 
biochemistry    course   offered  by    Professor    [Dennis  R.]    Hoagland, 
whose  lab  instructor  was  Dr.    [William   Z.]    Hassid — another  famous 
name  in  the  annals  of   plant   physiology   and  plant  biochemistry. 
Jack  Oswald  and  Bob    [Robert  N.]    Colwell.    who  was   ultimately   a  UC 
Berkeley   professor  in  the  School   of   Forestry,   were  in  that  plant 
biochemistry    course. 

I  worked  closely  with  Jack  Oswald  in  later  years,    so  let  me 
elaborate  on  his   career  for  a  minute.     Jack  Oswald  finished  his 
degree  program   at  the  University   of   California  about   1942;  he  got 
his  Ph.D.    and  immediately  enlisted  in  the  navy.      He   became  an 
officer  in  the  navy,    ultimately   assigned  to   the  PT  boats.      In  the 
later  years  of  his  service   career  he  was   commander  of   a   squadron 
of   PT  boats  and  had  a  pretty   harrowing  experience   in  the  war. 
He   came  back  after  the  war  and  joined  the  faculty   of    the   plant 
pathology   department  at  Davis.      After   Max  Gardner's  retirement, 
my  father  became  the  chairman  of   the  department  when  the   chair 
moved  to  Davis.      Nobody   exchanged  positions,    but   the  chairmanship 
did.      My  father  asked  Jack  Oswald  if  he  would  move   to  Berkeley 
and  become   the  assistant   chair  for  the  Berkeley  campus,    which  he 
did;   and  he   then  began  to  exert  a   certain  amount  of   independence, 
somewhat   to  the  consternation  of   my   father.      But  therein  lies 
this  Berkeley-Davis  relationship  that  we  will   get  into  later. 

Jack,    being  a   self-starter  and  a   participant,    became  noticed 
by   the   dean  and  then  by   the    Chancellor's   Office.      He   subsequently 
was  asked  to  assist   dark  Kerr  as  one   of    the  assistant  chancell 
ors.      Then  when  Clark  became   the   president   of    the  University, 
Jack  moved  with  Clark  as  a   special    assistant  to  the  president  and 
handled  the  Regents'   meetings'   agenda,    etc.      Jack  then  moved  from 
the  University   of   California  to  the  University   of   Kentucky   as 
president,    where  he   served  for  about  eight  or  ten  years.      He   got 
a  little  tired  of  Kentucky   politics  and  rejoined  the  University 
of   California  with  President  Charles  Hitch,   who  appointed  me  as 
the  vice-president   of   Agricultural    Sciences,    as  it  was  known  at 
the   time,   and  Jack  Oswald  as  his  executive  vice-president.     Jack 
was  in  that  position  for  only  about  a  year  or  year  and  a  half  and 
then  went  to  Penn  State  University  as  its   president,    where  he 
served  a  good  fifteen  years.      He  retired  as   president  a   couple  of 
years  ago.      He  has   been  a  recognized  success  in  academic 
leadership   in  university   circles.      Jack  has  been  a   close 
colleague  and  family   friend   throughout  our   respective    careers. 


23 


Ker.drick:      Now,    back  to   college.      I  was  able,    through  a  little  influence   by 
my    father  and  Dr.    Max  Gardner,    to  take   that  plant   biochemistry 
course,    which   I  really  had  no  business   taking  at   that   point,    but 
I   needed  a  botany    course   and  that  was   the  only   one  available  to 
me  which   didn't  have  a  botany    prerequisite.      So   I  found   myself 
with   about   twenty   graduate   students.      I   think  I  was  the  only 
undergraduate  in  the    course,    and   I  worked  like  a   beaver. 

Professor   Hoagland  used  to   come  in  at  twelve   o'clock.       It 
was  a   one-to-two  o'clock  lecture  and   a   two-to-five    o'clock  lab, 
two  or   three   times  a  week.      Hoagland  used  to  come  to  the 
classroom  and  begin  to   cover   the   blackboards  with   data,    tables, 
and  figures,    and   during  his  lecture  he  would  refer   to   them.      It 
soon  occurred  to  both  Jack  Oswald  and  me  that   if  we  wanted  to 
make   any    sense   out   of    our  lecture  notes,    we  had  to  get  to  the 
class  about  the   same   time  as   Professor  Hoagland  and   start    copying 
all   of   the  information  as  he  was  writing  it  on  the  blackboards. 
Well,    I   worked  hard,    survived,    and   got  an  A  out   of    the    course;    so 
it  was   a  worthwhile  experience.      But  it  was  another  one   of   the 
challenges  to  stay   up  with  my   colleagues,    and   I  never  really  was 
comfortable   coming  in  second. 

Lage:  [laughs]      I   can   see   this   competitive   streak  in  you   coming  out. 

Kendrick:      I    really    liked   to   be   up  front. 

My   undergraduate  education  at  Berkeley   was  first   class, 
offered  by    giants  in  their  field.      They  will   remain  lasting 
impressions  on  me  as  well  as,    apparently,    lasting  impressions  on 
their   colleagues  because   they  were   all   honored  and  identified  as 
significant   figures.      I   felt   that  my    four  years  in  that  program 
in   the   College   of  Letters  and  Science  was  really   a    gift. 

Another   thing  I   liked  about  my   undergraduate  years  was  the 
old  Berkeley   semester  schedule  which  Berkeley   has  returned   to.      I 
liked  that   schedule  because   if  your   finals  fell   right  in  the   fall 
semester,    there  were  six  weeks  beween  semesters  which  were 
available  for  work.      One  year  I   swept   the  library    at   the  Davis 
campus.      I  had   all   kinds   of   odd  jobs   during  my   undergraduate 
years  which   provided  me  with  enough  cash  for  my   social   schedule 
needs    during   the    spring. 

Lage:  It   does  make   sense.      I   guess  other  people   think  so,    too,    since 

the    campus  has   returned  to   that   schedule. 

Kendrick:      It's   easier    to   organize   a   course   of    instruction  in  the  longer 
term    than   the   shorter  quarter   term.      I   participated  in  the 
conversion  from    the   semester  to  the  quarter  system   at  Riverside 
and  saw   many   courses  abused  when  their  instructors  modified   the 
schedule   of    presentation  rather   than  changing  the   course   to  fit 
the  quarter   term    schedule. 


24 


Kendrick:      The   one  big  surprise  of   my   last   undergraduate  year  occurred  when 
I   returned  to  Bowles  Hall   one   spring  afternoon  and  found  a  notice 
in  my  mailbox  informing  me   that   I  had  been  elected   to   Phi  Beta 
Kappa.       I   hadn't   the  foggiest   notion  that  I  had  qualified  or 
whether   I  was  even  being  considered  for  membership.      But  it  was   & 
thrill.      It  made   all   the  hard  work,    study,    and  competitiveness 
worth   it. 


Going  to  Mecca: 

Plant   Pathology 


Choosing  Wisconsin  for  Graduate   Studies   in 


Kendrick:      I  went  to  Wisconsin  the  fall   of   1942.      I  had  earlier  determined 
that  Wisconsin  was  where   I  wanted  to   go  to  school   and   that  was 
largely  through  the  influence  of  my   father,    who  knew  where  the 
outstanding  departments   of   plant   pathology  were. 

Lage:  We  haven't  really   talked  about  how  you  decided  on  plant 

pathology. 

Kendrick:     No,    we  haven't.      It  was  not  really  a  very   sudden  decision  on  my 
part  because   I  had  had  a  fair  amount  of  exposure  to  the  subject 
in  my   Davis   school  years  when  I  would  go   to  the  field  with  my 
father  and   see   the  kinds   of    things   that  he  was   doing.      Then  while 
wondering  what  I  might  do  with  the  major  in  general  curriculum,    I 
figured  that  Dad's  life  had  been  pretty   rewarding  and 
satisfactory,    and  since    I  was   interested  in  genetics   and  plant 
breeding  and  diseases,    I  thought   I   might  as  well   pursue    plant 
pathology  too. 

Lage:  What  about  the  decision  to  go  on  to  graduate  school? 

Kendrick:      There  was   never  a   doubt. 

Lage:  Never  a  doubt?      You  had  been  thinking  about  it  with  medicine,    of 

course. 

Kendrick:     No,    there  was   never  a  question  about   stopping  with   a  bachelor's 
program.      I  seemed  destined  to   go  as  far  as   the  academic 
offerings  were  available,    whether  it  was  in  medicine   or  a  Ph.D. 
program.      I  had  determined  that  what   I  really  wanted  to   do  was 
affiliate  with   a  university,    once    I   had  made   the  decision  not  to 
go  into  medicine.      You're   not    going  to   do   that  with  only    a 
bachelor's   degree;    you  are  going  to  do  it  with  an  advanced 
degree. 


25 


Kendrick:      There  is  another   event   that  had   a  major  influence   on  my    career. 
I  mentioned  that  my   father  went  to  Purdue   to  work  with  Max 
Gardner,    and   they   became   collaborators  and   colleagues.      Bad  was 
looking  ahead  in  the  early  1930s  to  when  Ralph  Smith  would  retire 
from   the  University  as   chairman  of    the   plant   pathology 
department,    which   included  Davis  at  the  time.      I  know   Dad  was 
instrumental  in  getting  Max  to  move  to  Berkeley   in  1932   in  the 
Department   of   Plant  Pathology,    where  they   resumed  their 
collaborative  relationship.     When   Professor   Smith  retired  in 
1936,   Dad  supported  Max  Gardner  as  the  logical    candidate  for   that 
chairmanship.      I   guess  he  was  able   to   get   Max's   name  into 
consideration  because   the  man  who  ultimately   made   all   the 
decisions   in  those   days,    Dean   Claude  B.    Hutchison,    made   the 
appointment   in  1936.      Max  Gardner  held  that  chairmanship  until   he 
retired   in   1954. 


Lage: 


Well,    my   dad  and  Max  continued  this  very   close  personal 
friendship  and  relationship   the  rest    of    their  lives.       I    didn't 
have   a  godfather,    but   if   there  had  been  anybody   who  was  my 
godfather.    Max  Gardner  would  have   been  the   one.      He   often  told   of 
"hand-holding"  my    father   during  the  night   of   my   birth,    so   that 
goes  back  a  long  way.      Margaret  Gardner,    Max's  widow,    still   lives 
in  their  home  here  on  Hawthorne  Terrace.      She  is  hard  of   hearing 
and  cannot   see  well,    but   she  is  a   spry   ninety- two-year- old   person 
who  is  a  marvel.      They    raised  two  children,    and  they  both  became 
physicians.      Murray  H.   Gardner  is  at  Davis  now   in  the   department 
of   medicine   and  veterinary   medicine  working  on  AIDS  of   rhesus 
monkeys.      Mary   Frances   is  in  San  Antonio,    I   think.      She  and  her 
husband,    also  a  physician,    raised  a  family,    most  of  whom  became 
doctors   too. 

But   the   close   relationship  that  my   father  and  Max  maintained 
all   their  life — there  is  a   picture   of   the   two   of    them   right   there 
[indicating  a   photograph]    in  front   of   Hilgard — was  one  that  I 
felt  very  warm  about.      Whenever  Dad  would  come  to  Berkeley   for 
his  business  I  would  make  arrangements  to  get  down  and  visit  with 
him   briefly   in  Max's   office.      So   plant   pathology   sort   of  wrapped 
itself  around  me  by   osmosis  as  much  as  any   calculated  decision  to 
pursue   it  as   a   profession. 

But  your   interest   definitely   lay    there,    in  related  fields,    at 
least. 


Kendrick:     Well,    I  felt  comfortable  working  with  plants.      I   spent  my   summers 
assisting  the  plant  breeders  in  the  agronomy  and  pomology 
departments  at  Davis  and  that  gave  me   a  boost   in  genetics,    too. 
I  liked  seeing  what  would  happen  when  you  made   crosses  and   then 
analyzed  the  progeny   data.      This   gave  me   an  early   statistical 
exposure.      We  had  to  analyze   the   data   to   see   if  we  were   dealing 
with  something  real   or  imagined.      So,    almost  from   the  time  I 
entered  high  school   I  was  familiar  with   plant  experiments.      It 


26 


Kendrick :      may  have   been  different  if   my   father  had   been  an  animal 

scientist — I   may   have  gone   on  in  animal   science;   but  it  was 
plants  that  I  was  interested  in  and  felt  a   certain   degree   of 
confidence    dealing  with. 

Max  Gardner  and  my   father  were  quite  familiar  with  the 
graduate   program  in  plant   pathology   of  Wisconsin  and   thought 
highly   of    it.      In  plant   pathology    there  was   Cornell   and  Minnesota 
or  Wisconsin,    and  after  those   three,    well,    the  rest   of    then  were 
in  a   different   rank  order. 

Lage:  What  about  UC? 

Kendrick:     Not  at  that  time.      It  was  not  that  eminent. 

Cornell,   Wisconsin,   and   Minnesota  had   three   giants   that 
stood   out   as   patriarchs  in  the  field.      At  Wisconsin  it  was  L.    R. 
Jones,   at   Minnesota  it  was  E.    C.    Stakeman,    and  at   Cornell   it  was 
H.  H.  Whetzel.     L.  R.  Jones  had  a  number  of  students  who  went  or. 
to  become  pioneers  in  plant   pathology   in  various   departments   in 
the  U.S.      One  thing  Wisconsin  did  well  was  place   their  students 
all   over  the  U.S.    and  these   graduates  would   send   their    good 
students  to  Wisconsin;    for   these   students  was   sort  of   like   going 
to  Mecca.      Minnesota  graduates   did   the   same   thing  for   Minnesota, 
and  Cornell   graduates  were   equally  loyal    to  Cornell.      But  L.    R. 
Jones  was  the  patriarch  of  four  eminent   people  in  their   own 
right:     James  Dickson,    George  Keitt,    J.    C.    Walker,    and  Joyce 
Riker.      These  four  men  split   their   plant    pathology   interests   by 
commodities.      Keitt  was  a  fruit  tree  pathologist,    Riker  was  a 
bacteriologist  and  a  forest   pathologist,    Dickson  was  a   cereal  and 
forage   crop  specialist,    and  J.    C.    Walker  was  a  vegetable 
pathologist. 

My    father  and  Max  Gardner  recommended  that  I  study   with  J. 
C.   Walker,    so  that's  where   I  wound  up.      I  was  offered  a  Wisconsin 
Alumni  Research  Foundation    [WARF]    fellowship  amounting  to  six 
hundred  dollars  for  the  year;   but  all   of   the  fees  were  included, 
so   it  was  worth  more   than  just   the   six  hundred  dollars.      The  six 
hundred  dollars  just    paid   the  rent. 

Lage:  Did  you  get  married  on  that? 

Kendrick:      Oh,    yes.      The  pioneer  spirit.      [laughter]      We  had   planned   that 
Evelyn,    with  her  banking  experience,    would   go   to  work,    but   her 
full-time  job  paid  her  the  magnificent  sum   of    seventy-five 
dollars   a  month.      On  that,    with  my   sixty   dollars  a  month  and  with 
all    the  fees  taken   care  of,  we  managed  to  survive   pretty  well. 
Our   rent  was   about   fifty   dollars   a  month. 

Lage:  You  could   get  by  on  a  lot  less   then. 


27 


Kendrick:      We   didn't  indulge  in  any   extravagances,    but  we    didn't   feel    that 
we  were   suffering  or   sacrificing.      I   have  to  mention  that  the 
board  and  room  fee  at  Bowles  Hall,    during  the  four  years   that   I 
was   there,    started  out  as  fifty   dollars  a  month.      During  the  last 
year   I   think  it    got    up   to  fifty-five. 

So   the  fall   of   '42,    with   gas  rationing  and  tires 
unavailable — after  being  married  in  May  and  working  during  the 
summer,    saving  as  much  as  we  could  in  order  to  pay   the  apartment 
rent  in  Davis  for  three  months,    scrounging  as  many   old   tires 
(that   still   had  a  little   tread  left   on  them)   as  we  could — we 
bundled  ourselves  and  possessions   into  Evelyn's   1937   Dodge    coupe 
and  headed  for  Wisconsin. 

Lage:  That  must  have   been  an  adventure  in  itself.       [laughter] 

Kendrick:      It  was.      Good  thing  we   didn't  know   what  was  ahead  of   us  or  we 
would  not  have  had  enough   gumption  to   go.     Life  has   been  an 
adventure  ever   since. 

f* 


28 


II     GRADUATE   SCHOOL    AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN  AND  WARTIME 
SERVICE,    1942-1947 


Brother's   Parallel    Path   in  Plant   Pathology 


Kendrick:      Well.    I've  got   some   things   that   I   think  we   overlooked  in   our 
first   session.      I  need  to   comment  a  little   bit  more  about    my 
sister  and  brother.      My   brother  and  I   had  some   uniqueness   in   our 
careers    that    I   think  is  worth  putting  in   the  record.       Elizabeth, 
my   sister,    is  the   second  oldest   child  of   the  marriage   of   my 
father  and  mother.      She  was   born  July  11,    1926,    in  Lafayette, 
Indiana.       So   she  and  I   are  Hoosiers.       She  finished   grade   and  high 
school  in  Davis  and  spent   a  few  years  at  Oregon  State  University 
but   did  not   finish   there.      She  married  a   graduate   from    the 
University   of    California  at   Davis,    Donald  Gale,    and   they   have  had 
a  career  located  in  Davis  and  Woodland.      Don  is  a  building 
contractor  who  worked  with  his  father,    also  a   contractor  from 
Winters,    before  he  developed  his  own  ousir.ess  and  became  a 
contractor  in  his   own  right.      He  and   my    sister  have   three    beys. 
They   lived  in  Davis   until   Don  got   disillusioned  with  the  Davis 
city   council's   slow-growth,    no-growth  attitude.      And   because  his 
business  was   not   thriving  under   that  kind  of   an  environment,    he 
moved  to  Woodland.      That  is  where   they   are   presently   and  have 
been  for  a  number  of  years. 

Edgar,    my   brother,    was   born  in  Woodland  on  March  23,    1928. 
His  education  through  high  school  was   in  Davis  and  interestingly 
enough — I  don't  know    the  reasons  why — he  had  an  education  that 
duplicated  mine.      He  went   to  Berkeley   as  an   undergraduate.      I 
don't   recall   what  his  major  was  but   it  was  in  the  botanical 
sciences,    I'm   sure,    because  he   also  went   back   to   the  University 
of   Wisconsin  after   graduating  from   Berkeley    in  1950    for  his   Ph.D. 
training  in   plant    pathology. 

His  major   professor  was   one   of   those  big-four   successors  to 
L.    R.    Jones,    Professor  Jim   Dickson.      So  in  his   early    career  in 
plant   pathology    he  dealt  with  ce'real   crops.      When  it  came   time 
for  him   to   get  a   professional   position,   he   found  one   in   Pullman. 


With  parents,  James  B. ,  Senior,  and 
Violet  Kendrick  in  Ames,  Iowa,  1925. 


University  of  Wisconsin  Professor  J.C, 
Walker,  August  1961. 


Above:   Professors  Max  Gardner 

(left)  and  J.B.  Kendrick, 

Senior,  ca  1940. 

Right:   James  B.  Kendrick,  Jr., 

1944. 


29 


Kendrick:      Washington,    at  Washington  State  University,    but  it  was  with   the 
USDA  in  a  laboratory    established  to   study    cereal    diseases,    and 
more   particularly   it  was   cauled   the   "smut"  lab.      Smut   is   a 
disease   of   cereals   that  is  quite   devastating,    so   this  laboratory 
was  set  up  with  three   or  four  professionals  to   deal  with   smut 
diseases   of   wheat. 

Lage  :  So  he  was  employed  by   the  USDA  rather   than  the   university. 

Kendrick:      That  is    correct.      And  he   spent  his  entire    career  with   the  USDA. 
His   career  was  very   similar  to  mine  with  the  University   of 
California  because  he    ultimately  was   transfered  to  Beltsville, 
Maryland,    the  early   headquarters   for  many  of   the  Agriculture 
Research  Service   programs,   as  an  administrator.      From    there  he 
progressed  through  various  administrative   assignments.      At   one 
time,    he  was  located  in  Tucson,    where  he   presently  has  retired 
and  is  now    living.      His  administrative  assignments  took  him  to 
Washington,    D.  C.,    Tucson,    New    Orleans,    and  again   to  Washington, 
D.  C.       While  in  New   Orleans  he  had  the  responsibility    for  all    the 
Agriculture  Research  Service  workers   in  the   southern  region   of 
the  U.S.      With   the  establishment   of    the  assistant   secretaryship 
for  science  and  education  in  the  USDA  about   six  years  ago,   he  was 
able   to   serve   as   the  acting  deputy   assistant   secretary    for 
science  and  education  with  a  very   good  friend  of   mine,    Orville 
Bentley.      So  his   career   in  the  USDA  was   not  unlike  mine  with  the 
University  of   California,    except   that  mine   did  not   take  me   all 
over    the  United   States. 

The  uniqueness,    and  why   I  wanted  to   get  it  in  the  record,    is 
that  in   plant   pathology — it  is  not   a   large    profession — I    don't 
think  there  are  many   families  with  a  father  and  two  sons  actively 
engaged  in   plant   pathology  at   the    same    time.      Of    course,    my 
father    retired   in   1960. 

Lage:  That   is  an  amazing  record. 

Kendrick:      So  we  were  active,    but   not   collaborators  at  the  same  time. 

Lage:  You   don't  have  an  explanation  for  your   parallel    paths? 

Kendrick:      I    really   do  not.      Except   that   I  would   guess  that  my   father's 
career  was  attractive  enough  to  the   two  of   us   that  we   saw    the 
opportunities  were   there  for  anyone  who  wanted  to  work  hard  and 
get  a   good  education  and   could  follow   it.      My   father   certainly 
did  nothing  to  discourage    us   from   following  him   into  that  kind  of 
an  activity. 

Lage:  But   it  wasn't  an  expectation. 

Kendrick:      No.      He   never  laid   down  any  kind  of  entreating  requests   that  we 
follow    him    [laughter]    and  perpetuate   his   interest   in  the  field. 


30 


Lage:  It's  not  like   taking  over   the   family   business   or  anything. 

Kendrick:      No.       It's   not  like   expecting — as  a   physician — that  you  would   come 
back  and  take   over  the   practice   or,    as  you  indicated,    take   over 
the  business  and  keep  that  running.      I   think  it  was   more   of    a 
feeling  that  it  was  a   good  life,    as  well   as  one   that   contributed 
positive  benefits  to  others  and  provided  a   good   deal    of    happiness 
in  pursuing  that   kind  of   activity.      There  were   too  many  years 
between  my  brother  and  me  to  have  anything  in  common  while  we 
were   growing  youngsters.      In  subsequent  years  we  have   become 
close    and   have   followed  each   other's   activities  very   closely. 

He  retired  before  I   did.      He  had  his   thirty  years   of    service 
when  he  reached  age  fifty-five  and  was  a  little  tired  of   the 
administrative  life   that  he  was  leading.      Washington,    B.C.,     gets 
under  many   people's   skin,    and  they   get   Potomac   fever;    Potomac 
fever  describes  an  attitude   of    people  in   the  federal    government 
who  become  impressed  with  their  own  importance  because  of   the 
positions   they   occupy  and   the  renown  of    their  associates.      But 
there  is  no  question  about   the  exciting  environment  of 
Washington,    D.C.    I   think   there  are   a  lot   of   good   people   in 
Washington,    D.C.      I  am   continually    impressed  with   the  quality    of 
people  in   government  in   certain  areas,    but  you  encounter   the 
other  kind  also,    frequently   enough   to  make   it   unattractive   to 
those   of    us  who  live   in   the   "provinces." 

Lage:  Well,    your  brother  retired  to  Tucson,    so  that  must  say   something 

about  his  experiences   in  Washington,     B.C. 

Kendrick:      Perhaps. 


Glenn  Pound,    Fellow  Gradua te   Student 


Kendrick:     Let   us   get  back  to  my   own  education.      Shortly   after  Evelyn  and   I 
arrived  in  Madison  in   the  fall    of   1942  and  had  located   the   third 
floor   turret  apartment   that  would  be   our  home  for  about  nine 
months,   we  drove  to  the   campus  to  try  and  make   contact  with 
Professor  Walker.      We   pulled  into   the  parking  lot  next   to  Moore 
Hall,   which  housed  the  agronomy   and   plant    pathology   departments, 
and  sat  for  a  few   minutes  looking  bewilderedly  at  one  another 
wondering,    "What  next?"     We   then  saw   a   person  walking  toward   us 
with   a  jaunty    step  and  whistling  a   merry   tune.      He  stopped  and 
said,    "May    I  help  you?"     "Well,"  we    said,    "You   certainly    can," 
because   at   that  point   I   did  not  know   where  I  was  to  go  next   as 
far  as  locating   people  was    concerned..      That    person  turned   out    to 
be  Glenn  Pound,    and  that  was   the  beginning  of   a  long  and  fruitful 
friendship  with  him  and  his  wife,    Daisy. 


31 


Kendrick 


Lage: 


Kendrick  : 


Lage: 
Kendrick 


Glenn  was  a   graduate   student  in   plant   pathology   and  was  about 
finished  with  his   program   of    training  at   that  point.      He   got  his 
Ph.D.    degree   in   mid   1943.      Glenn's    career  led   ultimately    to   the 
chairmanship  of    the  Department  of   Plant  Pathology  at  Wisconsin 
and   dean  of    the   College   of  Agriculture  and  Life   Sciences  at 
Wisconsin,    from   which   position  he  retired.      He  is  now   living  in 
La  Jolla.     He  had  an  Arkansas   twang  and  an   unlimited  supply   of 
jokes — good  jokes  that  were  not   obscene — and  always  had  a   story 
that  was  appropriate  for   the   occasion.      He  has  a   great   sense   of 
humor  and  is  just   fun  to  be  with,    but  he  also  possesses  a  keen 
mind  and  was  a  good  leader.      We   continue  to   cherish   the  warm 
friendship  that   started  forty-six  years  ago   in  a   parking  lot  in 
Wisconsin  with   that,    "May    I  help  you?". 

His   career   has   certain   parallels  with  yours  also. 

Well,    to   some  extent.      He's   participated  in  national    affairs  like 
I  have  and   chaired  some  rather   significant  national   committees. 
One  committee  which  he   chaired  brought  him   considerable 
notoriety.      It  was   a   committee  sponsored  by   the  National   Academy 
of  Science  to   study   and  evaluate   the  research   program    of    the 
Agriculture  Research   Service    (ARS)    of    the  USDA.      The   committee's 
report  was  very   critical    of    the  quality  and   creativeness   of   ARS 
research.       It   received  a  lot  of   attention  in  the   scientific  press 
and  Congress  where  it  became   known  as   the   Pound  Report.      That  is 
the  fate  of   any   chair  of   a  committee  which  issues  a  report  which 
has  an  impact.       If   it    doesn't  have  an  impact,    you  never  hear 
about   it  anymore;   but   this  was  one   of   the  early  evaluations  of 
agriculture  research  which  pointed  out   that  it   could   be  very   much 
better   than  it  had  become.      Needless   to  say,    it  was   controversial, 
and  caused  a   certain  amount  of   embarrassment  for   the  USDA 
administration  and  the  research   participants.      It  was  an 
evaluation  by   people  external   to  the  USDA,    some   of  whom  were   not 
agricultural    scientists.      They   were,    however,    experienced  in 
basic   biology  and  chemistry,   and   they   pointed  out   rather 
forcefully   that   the  lack  of   peer  review   and  competitiveness  in 
the   system  was    detrimental   to  its  quality. 

So   the  academic  model   did  not   prevail. 

No,    not  in  the  USDA,      And   ultimately,    the  USDA  did   develop   a 
competitive   grant   system    and  one  of   the  agencies  that  my  brother 
headed  for  the  assistant   secretary  just   before  his  retirement  was 
the  Office   of    Competitive  Grants  and  Special    Projects.      I  like   to 
think   that   I  had  a   certain  amount   of  influence  in  trying  to   get 
the  USDA  to  accept   the   competitiveness  of   grants,    and   certainly 
my  brother  was  an  enthusiastic  administrator  of   that   program — so 
we  were  not  without   our   hand  in  the  pie,    in  a  way. 


Lage: 


When  was   that   Pound  Report? 
that? 


Did  you   give   us  a   general    date   on 


32 


Kendrick:      Well,    it   goes   back   to   probably    the   early  1970s,    in   that    period, 
because    I  was  vice    president  at  that  time,    and  it  came  along 
fairly  early  in  my  administrative   career.      We  will   get   into   some 
other   things   that  followed  it  because    I   participated   in  a  couple 
of   evaluations   myself,   but   that  really   is   part   of    the 
administrative   story    downstream    a  little  bit. 

Lage:  What  else   did  you  find  at  Wisconsin?      I  know  you  had   some   things 

on  your  mind  that  you  wanted  to  cover. 

Kendrick:      As   I  mentioned  earlier,    I  was  fortunate,     I  felt,    in  receiving  a 
Wisconsin  Alumni  Research  Foundation  fellowship  amounting  to  six 
hundred   dollars   a  year. 

Lage:  That  would  not  take  you  too  far  today. 

Kendrick:      That  fifty   dollars   a  month   paid  our  rent.      But  in  addition,    the 
fellowship  paid  my   tuition  and  fees,    so   the  actual   cost  of  going 
to  school  was  taken  care   of   by    the  fellowship.      The  Wisconsin 
Alumni   Research   Foundation  was  developed  from    the  proceeds  of 
patents  on  inventions    developed  from  Wisconsin  research.      One    of 
the  most  lucrative   early   patents   covered  the  irradiation  of   milk 
which  caused  the  enhancement  of  vitamin  D.      Then  the   subsequent 
big  money   item  was  a   patent  on  the  development  of  warfarin 
[Wisconsin  Alumni  Research  foundation  +   coumarin] ,    which  is  an 
anti-blood-clottir.g  factor   that  came   out   of   moldy   hay.      It  was 
isolated   by    the   biochemistry    group   there.      It  had   been   developed 
as  a   rat  poison  and  is  also  used  in  medicine   as  an  anti 
coagulant. 

We  really   survived  by   Evelyn  working  as  a  bank  teller  at  a 
downtown  bank  in  Madison  for  seventy-five   dollars  a  month.      We 
lived  on  that  plus  the  savings  we  had  made   through  my   own 
activities  working  summers  and  holidays  and  her  accumulated 
wealth  as  a  bank  teller  in  Davis,    which  was  meager.       [laughter] 
We  really   did  not  feel   that  we  were  suffering  much,    but  we   did 
not    splurge   either. 


The  Lasting  Influence   of  J.    C.    Walker  and  other  Wisconsin 
Professors 


Kendrick:      I  want   to   say   a  little  bit  about  J.    C.    Walker,    the  man  who  was  my 
mentor.      His   influence  has   been  everlasting.      I   think  most  major 
professors  of   hard-working  graduate   students  leave  some  kind  of 
impression,    either   good  or  bad;    fortunately    Dr.    Walker's 
impression,    on  me  at  least,    was   good.      But  he  has  had  a 
reputation  of   being   cool,    cdd,    distant,    hard-driving,    not 
terribly   communicative — not  a   person  that  you  could  warm   up  to. 


33 


Kendrick:     Just   the   opposite   of   my   father.      My   father   treated  his   graduate 
students  like   members  of    the  family.      Dr.    Walker  had  so  many 
students   that  he    could  not  really   treat   them   that  way.     But  his 
nature  was   not   one   of   warmth,    at  least  at  that   stage    of    his   life. 

His  technique   of    training  was   to  test  you  initially    to   see 
if  you  had  enough   initiative   and  ingenuity   to  survive   all    the 
hard  work  of   graduate  school.      He  was   the  kind   of    person  who   puts 
you  blindfolded   into  a   room    and  says,    "Find  your  way   out."     He 
didn't  tell  you  where   the   obstacles  were   or  where   the   door  was; 
he  just  wanted  to   see   how  well  you  would  solve  the  puzzle  on  your 
own. 

Lage:  Is   this  on  your   research   projects? 

Kendrick:      Yes,    it  was  in   the  research  area,    primarily.      The   selection   of 

the   courses   that   I   needed  to   take  was   not  solely   my   own  decision; 
the    courses  were   pretty  well   prescribed   by   Dr.    Walker.      I   did  not 
have  many   courses   that   I   had  to  take,    but  there  were  some 
graduate   courses   that  were   necessary.      Fortunately,    my   botany, 
genetics,     and  zoology    had  provided  a   pretty    good  base   training. 
I   did  not  have  any  major   gaps  in   my    training  except  for 
systematic  botany,    which   I   did  not  have  before  I  went  into  the 
graduate   training.      My   minor  was  in   plant   physiology.      Dr.    Walker 
had  a  very   close   colleague,    Dr.    Benjamin  M.    Bugger,    an  eminent 
plant  physiologist  who  after  retiring  went   to   the  Lederle   Drug 
Company   and  had  another   career  in  developing  antibiotics.      I 
think  it  was  his  laboratory  at  Lederle   that   discovered 
aureomycin.      It  was  a   given  that  if  you  were  Dr.    Walker's   student 
during  those  years   that  you  were   going  to  minor  in   plant 
physiology,    and  that  Dr.    Dugger  was   going  to  be  your   minor 
professor. 

Lage:  So  how   did  it  feel    to  be   thrown  into   this? 

Kendrick:      Well,    it  was  a  little   strange,    although  I  would   say    that   I  was 
not   exactly   hand-fed   going  through  Berkeley.      Berkeley   provides 
another  experience  where   no  one   takes  you  by    the  hand  and  leads 
you  through   it.      You  get   through  Berkeley    mostly   by   your   own 
ingenuity  and   persistence.      So  Wisconsin  was   not   all    that 
different   to  me.      My  own  self-starting  attitude  was  enough  for  me 
to   decide  that,    if   that  was   the  way   to  survive,    then   I  would   do 
what  was   needed  to  be   done.      But   I   must  admit  that  I  did  not  have 
much   training  in  how  you  pursue   a  research   program. 

I   recall   that  Dr.   Walker  called  me  into  his  office   after   I 
had   been  around  about   a  month,    and  he  had   a  little   paper    sack. 
He   opened  it   up  and  pulled  out  a   couple   of    tomatoes.      He   said, 
"Here,    Jim,    what   do  you  observe  about   these   tomatoes?"     I   said, 
"Well,    they    appear   to  have   a   couple   of    rots."     He    said,    "Yes, 
they    do.       Why    don't  you    go  find  out  what   is    known   about    them." 


34 


Kendrick:      And  that  was   my  introduction  to  an  early   research   program.       It 
turned  out   that   the  rot  was   tomato  ar.thracnose    [spells].      I 
hesitate  to  tell  you  what  it  was    caused   by  —  Colletotrichum 
phomoides    [spells]. 

Lage  :  [laughs]      We'll   have  to  run  this  as  a   test  for  our   transcribers  — 

Kendrick:      You  can  imagine   the  exercise   I   put   my  wife   through.      She   typed 
all   of   my    reports,    including  my   thesis.      By  the  time  we  had 
finished   three  years   of   association  of    this   kind,    she    got   to   the 
point  where  she  was   pretty    good  with   the  Latin.      The  best   thing 
about   these  long,    complicated  words   is   that   they   are   spelled  just 
about   like   they    sound.      There  are  not  a  lot  of    silent   letters   so 
that  if  you  can  sort  your  way   through   the   phonetics,    you   can    come 
pretty    close   to   the   spelling. 

Lage:  When  you  took  the  tomatoes   back  to   the  lab,    was   there  anyone 

there  to  guide  you  along? 

Kendrick:     Well,    in  research,    the  first   thing  you  have   to   find  out   is  what 
people  already  know   about  the  topic  you  have   decided  to  look  at. 
After  you  reassure  yourself  of  what  the  disease  is,    then  you  do  a 
library   search  of   the  literature  to   determine  what  is   known  about 
the  disease   and  where   the  gaps  of    information  are.      Then  you 
begin  to   design  experiments   to   get  information  to  fill    the    gaps. 

Doc  Walker's   technique   of    research   training  was   to  keep  his 
suggestions  to  a  minimum  and  to  let  his  students  work   through  a 
problem   pretty    much   on  their  own.      One  of   his  colleagues  would 
have  a  weekly   conference  with  each   of   his    graduate   students,    so 
they    really   didn't  have  much  leeway    to  stray    from    the  way   that 
particular   colleague   thought   the   problem    should   be  handled.      He 
wanted  to  guide   his   students,    almost   step  by   step;    that  was  not 
Dr.    Walker's  technique.      He   knew    that  eventually  you  were    going 
to  be   thrown  out   into   the  big,    wide  world  on  your   own  and  there 
was  not   going  to  be  a  Doc  Walker   close  at  hand   to   guide  you 
through  your   research.      So  I   think  part  of   his   training  plan  was 
just  to  see   if   his   students  had   the   basic   inquisitive  ness   to  make 
good  research  workers. 


Lage:  Was  he  very   critical    in  his  evaluation  of  you? 

Kendrick:     Well,    you  can  imagine   I   did  not   start   off  like    gangbusters  as   the 
most   original    researcher   that  he  had  ever   come  in  contact  with. 
I  wanted  some  verification  of  what   I  thought  he  had   given  me  —  if 
some   of    the  gaps   I   had  determined  existed  were  correct,    and  if 
looking  into  some  of   the  aspects  of   the   disease   development  were 
the   things   that  he  thought  were  important  —  bearing  in  mind  that 
the   ultimate   goal    of    plant    pathology   is   to   control    the   disease 


35 


Kendrick:      that  you  are    dealing  with.      You  really   need   to   keep   in   mind   that 
the  research   in  plant   pathology,    at  least   in  those   days,    was 
always   conducted  towards  taking  care  of   the   problem    of   disease 
development   in  the  field.      So  our   discussions   really   developed 
around   that   point   of  view. 

And  then  in  order   to  earn  my    fellowship,    he  asked  me  to  work 
with  his  reprints'   filing  system.      I   do  not  recall    specifically 
what   I  was   doing,    but   I  was  doing  something  with  his  literature 
card-file    system    to   bring  it   up   to   date.      I   think  he  had   two 
things   in  mind  in  assigning  that   task  to  me:      one  was  to  acquaint 
me  with  the  literature,    and  also  to  help  him   keep  his   filing 
system    current.      On  reflection  many   years  later,    I   recognized  his 
wisdom   as  a   teacher  in  not   spoon-feeding  his   students. 

He  also  had  a   reputation  of   being  able   to  bawl  out   students 
who   seemed   to  fall    a  little    short   of   his  expectations.      So   they 
would  tread  pretty    lightly   around  him   and  avoid  his  presence   if 
they   felt   that  he  was   not   feeling  up  to   snuff    that    day.      He  was   a 
very   keen   observer,    which    I    didn't   realize   early    on.      I   didn't 
see  him   regularly,   and  in  fact   I   got   the  feeling  that  he    did  not 
know   whether   I  was  around  or  not. 

But   in  later  years   I   realized  what  a  keen  observer  he  was. 
One  episode  in   particular  exemplifies   the   keenness   of   his 
observation.       Much   of    the  research   conducted  by   Wisconsin's   plant 
pathology   graduate   students  was   done  in  temperature-controlled 
greenhouses.      And  even  though   there   seemed  to  be   plenty    of 
greenhouse   space,    it  was   always   in   great   demand.      The   space 
available  never  quite  matched  the  need. 

Well,    the    greenhouses  were   always   full   of   students'   research 
programs.      One   of  my   colleagues  was  working  on  a  virus  problem — 
the  host   plant    doesn't  matter  and   I  have  forgotten  what  it  was, 
but    it  was  a  vegetable   of   some  kind.      He   got   called  into  Dr. 
Walker's  office  one  Monday  morning  and  was  really   read   the   riot 
act.    Something  had  occurred.      He   soon  found  that  Dr.    Walker   had 
gone   through  that    greenhouse  area   on   Saturday   or  Sunday   morning — 
he  was   over   there  every   day   of    the  week  usually  early   in  the 
morning — and  observed   some  aphids  infesting  these   plants.      Well, 
that   invalidated   the   test,    of   course,    because   aphids   are   a 
transmitter   of  virus   diseases,   and  he    could  not   be   sure   of    the 
results  of    his   transmission  tests.      Doc  Walker  was  really  teeing 
off   on  the   student   for  his   sloppiness   in  his   research   technique. 
This  episode   demonstrated  to  me  that  Doc  Walker  was  not  as 
uninformed  about  our  activities  as   it  appeared.      His  observation 
of  what  was   going  on  in  those   greenhouses  was  very  keen  and  very 
comprehensive   so  there  was  no  way  of  misleading  him  about  the 
progress  you  were  making  in  your  research  program. 


36 


Kendrick:      In  1946,   when  I  went  back  to  Wisconsin  to  finish   my    graduate 
career — and  I   am   going  to  fill    in  the   time-gap  later   on — Dr. 
Walker  asked  if   I  would  move  into   the  little  laboratory   adjacent 
to  his  office.      Most   of    the  graduate   students  were  in  one   of    two 
rooms.      The  advanced   graduate   students  were  in  one  large  room  and 
the  beginning  graduate   students  were  in  another  large   room   on 
another  floor   upstairs    close   to   the  library.      So   those  rooms  were 
always   busy;    somebody   was  there  all   the  time,    it  seemed  to  me. 
Dr.   Walker  always  had  one   of   his  advanced   students   in   the  little 
laboratory    adjacent   to  his  own  office,    and  I   happened   to   be    the 
one  in  1946-1947.      I  occupied   almost  a   gatekeeper  role   because 
his  reputation  for  moodiness   continued  even  in  those   days.      Often 
when  a  student  inquired,   "Is  Doc  in?",    I'd  reply  "Yes,   he  is  in." 
This  would  be   followed  by,    "What  kind  of    a  mood  is  he  in  today?" 
And   I  would   say,    "In  a   terrible  mood."     The   student  would   almost 
always  respond,    "Well,    I  won't  go  in  to  see  him  just   new." 

It  was  amusing  to  me   to  be   placed  in   that  role.      I  had   never 
experienced  a  harsh  word  from   Dr.    Walker.      My    colleague,    Dr. 
Grogan,   who  ultimately   came  to  Davis  in   plant   pathology   had   a 
similar  experience.      There  were  a  few   students  who  never  really 
had  angry  words  from   Dr.   Walker.     Glenn   Pound   also  was  a   student 
of   Dr.   Walker,    and  I   never   heard  him   complain  about   his 
relationship  with  Doc;    the  name  we  all   used  to   greet  him   and   by 
which   to  refer   to  him.      Doc  was  as   good  a   student  of    individual 
personalities  as  he  was  a   teacher.      I   think  he   knew    those  who 
responded  to   strong  criticism    and  a  dressing-down  and  those   on 
whom   that  kind  of   tactic  would  not  work. 

Lage :  So  it  was  all  very   controlled. 

Kendrick:      That's  a   good  way   to   put  it.       It  was  a   controlled  anger  at    times. 
I   think  we  all   have  very    fond  memories  of   Doc.      There  are  very 
few   people — even  those  who  were   dressed  up  and  down  one  way   or 
another — who  are  not  without   great  fondness  for  him.      He   still 
lives.      He  is   ninety-four  and  lives  in  Sun   City,    Arizona.       I   have 
not   seen  him   in  many,    many  years.      But  we  do  hear  from   him  at 
Christmas  when  we  exchange   Christmas    greetings. 

There  was  one   other   episode  which   stands  out  and 
characterizes   Dr.    Walker's  relationship  with  his   students   that    I 
would  like    to  record.      In  the  spring  of   1944,    two  of    his   grad 
students  were  in  a  laboratory  adjacent  to   the   one  where    I  was 
ultimately   housed   during  my    last   graduate  year.      These   two 
students  had  a   reputation  of   putting  off    things  which   needed 
doing.      Something  triggered  Walker   one   day,    and  he  went   into   the 
laboratory  and  cornered  the  individual  who  was   the    source   of   his 
ire.      He  was   really    reading  the  riot  act   to  him,    largely   because 
he   seemed  not   to   be   paying  attention  to  his  academic   progress. 
He   said,    after  a  little   drtissir.g-down,    "Your  qualifying 
examination  is   scheduled   a  month  from    today.      Be  ready   for   it." 


37 


Kendrick:      He  turned  or.  his  heels   to   the   other   colleague  who  was   trying  to 

make   himself  as   inconspicuous   as  possible  because   it  was  a   little 
embarrassing  to  be   there   through   that   tirade.      And  he   said,    "And 
yours   is    scheduled  the  week  following." 

Lage:  That  was   their  first   notice   of    the   exams? 

Kendrick:      That  was   their  first  notice   of   their  qualifying  examinations,    but 
the  real   problem  was  that  you  could  not   take  your  qualifying 
examination  until  you  had  satisfied  your  language   requirements. 
And  neither   one   of    those  individuals  had   satisfied   their  language 
requirement   of   French   and  German.      So  it  meant  that  one  of   them 
had  a  month  and  the   other  had  five  weeks   to   pass   their   French  and 
German  examinations  which  were  given  by   the  respective  language 
departments,    and   then   get   prepared  for   this  qualifying  exam. 
Well,    they    made   it.      [laughter]      As  you  can  imagine,    that  news 
got  around   that    graduate   student   group  like   the   spread   of   the 
plague. 

Lage:  There  was  no  appeal? 

Kendrick:      No,    there  was   no  appeal.      There  was   no  room    for  negotiations.      It 
was  just,    "You've   been  here  long  enough,    and  you're    going   to    get 
on  with   it."     It  was   another  one   of    these  Walkerisms  that  I 
remember  because  it  had  its  impact. 

Lage:  Did  this  approach   influence  you  as  a   teacher? 

Kendrick:      No.      Well,    it   did  to   the  extent   that   I   didn't  feel    that  it  was 
necessary   to  outline  in  detail   what   I  wanted  my   students  to  do. 
I  wanted  to   do  the    same   thing  that  Doc  Walker   did.      Test  out   the 
ability   of    the   students  to  dig  through   a  problem    for   themselves. 
So  that  part   of    the  technique   I   used.      I    didn't   rant  and   rave   as 
much   as  Doc   did.       [laughter] 

Lage:  That   goes  with   the   personality,    I'm  sure. 

Kendrick:      Some   other   impressions   that   I   have — I   didn't  have  many   professors 
at  Wisconsin,    but  of   course  Walker  and  Dugger   I  have  mentioned. 
Dugger  was  a  very  kindly,    soft-spoken  individual    in  the  botany 
department,    and  one  who  appeared   to   be   terribly   unorganized.      Ke 
was   not  a   good  lecturer;   I   found  it   difficult   to  follow    him.      He 
would  come  into  the  lecture  room  loaded  down  with  books  and 
proceed  to  quote  from   various   sections  of    those   books,    trying  to 
emphasize  a  point  that  he  was  making.      I  recall    going  to  his 
office   to  visit  with  him   to  get  some  references  for  a  paper  that 
I  had  to  write,    and  it  looked  like   the  receiving  room    of   a 
library.      Things  were   stacked  all   over   the  place,    and  he  would 
reach  into   the  middle   of   a   stack  and  pull   out   something:      "Here 
is  what   I  want  you  to  look  at."     He  seemed  to  know   where 


38 


Kendrick:      everything  was,    but  it  looked  like   organized   chaos.      He   retired 

when  I  was   in  the  armed  service,    so  my   successor  plant   physiology 
teacher  was   Professor   Fritz    Stauffer. 

Another  man  who  left  a  lasting  impression  on  me  because   of 
his  work  habits  was   Myron  Backus,    a   professor   of   botany   and  later 
a  professor   of    plant   pathology.      Professor   Myron  Backus  was  a 
mycologist,    and  we  had  to  take  a  number   of    courses   in 
nomenclature  of    fungi   and  make    collections  of   them.      Backus   also 
was   the   co-teacher  of    the  beginning  course  in   plant    pathology. 
All   graduate  students  had  to  take   it.      It  was  really   meant   to 
show  what  was   demanded  of  you  if  you  were   serious  about    going 
into  plant   pathology:      we  had  to  write  a  minor  thesis  once  a 
week.      During  the   semester  we  had  fifteen   diseases   to  review   and 
summarize  everything  known  about   them   in  a  written  report.      This 
required  a  lot  of  literature  reviewing.      Myron  Backus  left  ir.e 
with  a  practice   that   I   followed  through  my   own  teaching  career. 
He  not  only   graded  on   thoroughness  and   comprehensiveness   of    the 
reports,    but  he  also   corrected  the  grammar  and  spelling  in  them. 

Lage:  That's   probably   unusual   in  the   sciences. 

Kendrick:      It's   unusual    anywhere  in  my   experience.       [laughter]      I    decided 

that  I  would  require   correct  English  expression  from    my   students 
even  though    I   didn't   do   a  lot  of    teaching.      We   didn't  have   much 
opportunity  at  Riverside  to  teach   until    the    graduate   program    came 
into  being.      I  realized  that  probably  one  of    the  most  valuable 
experiences   I  had  learned  from   Professor  Backus  was  how    to  write 
in  a   scientifically   understandable  way.      And  so   I   required   the 
same  thing  in  the  reports  which  were   prepared  for  me.       I  would 
not  accept   student   reports  until   they   had  improved  their  grammar 
and   their  English.      I    don't  recall    if  Backus    ever    did    that,     but 
we  got  reports  back  that  were  well  covered  with  red  pencil 
corrections   in  English  and   grammar. 

Physiology   of   plant   disease  was   taught   by   Professor  Paul 
Allen  who  was   the   same  quality   teacher  as  Backus,    Bugger,    and 
Walker.      My   other   teachers   in  plant   pathology   were  Joyce   Riker, 
who  taught  the  methods   course,    and  Jim   Dickson,    who   taught   a 
cereals'   disease   course,    and  George  Keitt,    who  taught  a   fruit 
disease   course. 


Trademarks   of  Wisconsin's  Training  in  Plant   Pathology 


Kendrick:      One   important   impression  I  gained  from    this  early   training  period 
with  Dr.   Walker  was  that  one  of   the  most   important  aspects   of 
plant   pathology    is  the  physiology   of    :he   disease   development.      He 
also  was  a   strong   proponent   of    controlling  plant   diseases    through 


39 


Kendrick:      disease  resistance  and   plant   breeding.      He    didn't  hold   fungi cidal 
treatment   in  very   high   regard  because   I   think  he  thought  it  was 
of   temporary  value — kind  of  an  expedient,    rather   than   ultimately 
getting  at  a   more  lasting  control    of    these   problems. 

Lage:  That   seems  like   a   rather   contemporary  view. 

Kendrick:      Well,    his  view    of   plant  disease   control   was  a  forerunner  of  what 
we   call   biological   control   today,    which  is  responsive   to   the 
antipesticide   movement.      An   opposing  view    in  the  early   forties 
was  expressed  by   a  man  who  felt   that   the   study   and   use   of 
fungicides  was  where  he  wanted  to  spend  his  career.      He  was  the 
widely   renown   plant    pathologist  in   Connecticut,   James  Horsfall. 
Because   he  built  his  reputation  on  the  fungi cidal    control    of 
diseases,    there  was  always  a  little  rivalry   between   these   two, 
each   of   whom    felt   that  his  approach  probably  was  better   than  the 
other   one. 


Lage:  There  wasn't   the  array   of   pesticides  that   came  later,    though. 

Kendrick:      No.      Pesticides   used  for   the    control    of   diseases   in   plants 

certainly    fell    far  short  in  number   of    the  array   of   chemicals  that 
were   available   to   control   insects.      So   plant   pathology   really   did 
not  have   at  its   disposal    a  lot  of   magic  bullets.      We  really   had 
to  look  at   a  lot   of   other  means   of    controlling  diseases.      That 
was   good  basic  training  to  have  in  terms  of   trying  to  deal   with 
diseases    of    plants. 

Professor  George  Keitt  was   the  epitome  of   a  southern 
gentleman  who  was  a  GLemson  University   graduate,    as  was   my 
father.      He  left  a  lasting  impression  on  students  who  would 
listen  to  him  because  he  was  an  early   exponent   of    the 
epidemiology   of   disease   inception  and  occurrence.      He  was  working 
with  fruit   tree    diseases — cherries  and  apples.     Apple   scab  was  a 
particularly    tough   disease   to   understand  and   control.      The  only 
way   to   control   it  was  with  fungi  cidal   sprays.     But   Dr.   Keitt  was 
interested  in  what  influences  in  the  environment  triggered  the 
early   infections  and   the   subsequent   development,    or  lack   of 
development,    of    the  disease  itself.      So  he  and  his   students 
conducted  experiments  to  measure  all   the  environmental   elements 
through   the  life   cycle   of    the  pathogens  and  their  hosts.      That 
was  a  very  fundamental   contribution  to   the   understanding   of 
disease   development  which  demonstrated  to  me  the  importance  of 
the  environment  in   plant   pathology.      This   early   research   also 
contained  the   same  basic  elements  of   investigation  as  are 
contained  in  the   pest  management   program   presently   under  way   in 
the   University    of    California. 

Lage:  Integrated   pest  management? 


40 


Kendrick:      The  integrated  pest  management   program  is   based   upon 

understanding  the  interaction  between  a  host   and  its  pest  and 
then  applying  some  intervening  technique   to   disrupt   the 
progression  of    the  interaction.      Today   we   call   this   kind  of    study 
"modeling   the  host"  and   "modeling   the   insect   or    the    parasite." 
The  object   is  to  compare   them    to   see   if  you  can  find  a  weak  link 
in  the  life    cycle   of   either   the  host   or   the   parasite,   at  which 
point   one   could  intervene   and  disrupt   the  progression  of    the 
disease   or  insect   infestation. 

Dr.    Keitt's  environmental    studies  were  well  underway   when  I 
went   back   there  in  1942.      I   think   Professor  L.    R.    Jones   was 
really   the  one  who  realized  the  importance  of   these 
epidemiological    studies,    so   their   origin   goes   back  into   the   early 
twenties. 

Lage :  So  that  environmental    approach  was   focused  at  Wisconsin? 

Kendrick:      It  was  fundamentally   a  Wisconsin  contribution  to   the 
understanding   of    plant    pathology. 

Lage:  That's  an  interesting  point. 

Kendrick:      As   I've  indicated,    the   two  fundamental    concepts  of   pest 

management  were   contributed  by  Walker  and  Keitt:     Walker  being  ar. 
exponent   of   disease   resistance   and   control    through  breeding,    and 
Keitt's   careful  measurement   of    the  environmental   factors    in   situ 
in  an  attempt   to  relate   them    to   subsequent  disease   development. 
These  were  really   trademarks  of   the  Wisconsin  training  in   plant 
pathology    as   it  affected  me. 

The  first   two  years   that   I  was  there,    I  pursued  anthracnose 
of   tomato,    studying   the  fungus — the  apparent    cause   of    the 
disease — and  trying  to  find  out   how    it   existed  in  the  field  and 
how   it  over-wintered. 

Lage:  So  your  interest  in  this  assignment   that  he  gave  you  in  the 

beginning  continued. 

Kendrick:      It  did. 


A  Brief    Navy   Career 


Kendrick:     Let  me   digress  a  little  to  show   another  activity   of   mine  while  at 
Wisconsin.      I  am   going  to   describe   the   chronology   of    my  United 
States   armed   service  experience. 

Lage:  It   came  in   the  middle   of    graduate   school? 


41 


Kendrick:      Yes.      In   the  fall    of  1942,    some   of    my    graduate    colleagues  and   I 
were   a  little   nervous   about   being  in  school   while   some  of  our 
colleagues  were   in   the  armed   service.      Bear  in  mind    that    the   U.S. 
was  engaged  in  World  War  II,    and  things  were  pretty   furious  in 
the  fall   of  1942.      So  we   decided  to   go  to   Milwaukee  and  enlist  in 
the   navy.      The   navy   had  an  attractive  program   called  V-7. 
Graduates  of   this  program  were   sort  of   ninety-day  wonders,    who 
emerged  as  ensigns  in  the  officer   corps  of    the  United  States 
Navy. 

Ray  Grogan  —  whom   I  mentioned  earlier  and  who  has  just 
retired  as  a   professor   of   plant   pathology  at  the  Davis   campus 
where  he   spent  his   career  —  and  I  together  with  several   others 
decided  to  enroll   in  the  V-7   program.      Ray  was  inducted  into  the 
V-7   program   after  passing  the  physical   examination,    and  I  was 
inducted  into  what  was   described  as   the  V-7S   program.      They   told 
me  that   I  was   put  inV-7S  because  my  eyesight  wouldn't  allow   them 
to  qualify   me  for   the  regular  V-7   program.      Well,    I   didn't  have 
very   poor  eyesight,    but   I  was  wearing  glasses.      I  have 
astigmatism,   which  doesn't   permit  me  to  read  very  well  without 
correction.      So  I   said,    "Well,    that  sounds  ok  to  me.      What  is  the 
V-7S?"     They   said,    "Oh,    it's  a   special    program   for    developing 
meteorologists   and  weather   forecasters."     And  that   sounded  fine. 
But   they   also   said,    "You   don't  have  enough   college  math   to 
qualify    for    that   program."     "Oh,    I   don't?      What   do  you   suggest?" 
"Well,    go  back  and  enroll  in  a   college  math   program  and   get   some 
more   math." 


Kendrick:      We  were  inducted  into   the  navy   that  afternoon  as  inactive 

apprentice   seamen.      My  friend  Grogan,   however,  was  activated  at 
the  end  of   that  fall   term,    and  he  went   into  regular  service   then. 
Since   I  was  asked  to  take  an  additional    course  in  math,    I 
enrolled  in  a   course  in  the  spring  of   1943   while  I  was  in  this 
inactive  status. 

At   the  end  of    the  spring  semester   I   got  a  notice  from   the 
naval   district  in  Chicago  that  merely   stated   I  had  failed  to 
qualify    for   the  V-7S  program.      I  was  a  little  flabbergasted  and  I 
wondered  if   something  had  happened  with  my   grade  in  the  math 
course   that   I  was   unaware  of.      I  had  not  been  a  diligent   attender 
of    the  math   course,   but   I   took  all    the  examinations,   and  based  on 
my   performance   in  them,    I  did  not  expect   to  fail    that  course. 
Well,    I  quickly   checked  on  my   grade  and  found  that   I  had   gotten  a 
B   so   I  was   reassured  about  that.      It   then  took  me  about  three 
weeks   to  find  out   precisely  why   I  had  failed. 

You  will   recall   I  mentioned  in  the  previous  session  that 
majoring  in  botany,   zoology,   and   genetics  was  a  bit   difficult  to 
explain  throughout   my    career.      They   navy   replied  that  they   didn't 


42 


Kendrick:      have  a  place  in  the  navy  officer  V-7S   program  for   someone  who  had 
majored  in  botany,    zoology,    and  genetics.      They  gave  me  two 
options:      one  was  to  activate  me  as  an  apprentice    seaman  and 
assign   me   to  wherever   I  seemed  to  be  qualified,    and  the  other  was 
to  return  me  to  selective   service   status,    in  which  case   they 
would  give  me  an  honorable   discharge.      I  wasn't  attracted  to 
being  an  apprentice   seaman,   so   I   selected   the  option  to  have  an 
honorable    discharge.       I   got    one. 

I   then  noted  that  after  going  back  to  selective   service 
status  my  draft  number  was  slow   to  come  up.      So  I   continued  in 
school,    working  very   hard  to  finish   the  required  courses,    to  get 
the  language  examinations   taken   care   of,   and  to   get   the 
qualifying  oral    examination  out   of    the  way.      I   did  all   of    that   in 
the  fall  of  '43  and  the  spring  of  '44.      By  early  spring  of  '44,    I 
decided  that  I   had  had  enough   of  being  a   civilian  while  all   hell 
was  breaking  loose  around  us.      And  so  when   I  had  finished   my 
qualifying  examination,    I  was  determined  that  I  would  ask  for 
induction. 


Army   Training  and  Assignments;      A  Waiting  Game 


Kendrick:     Once  again,    Evelyn  and  I   packed  up  our   1937  Dodge   coupe,    mustered 
all    the   gas   coupons  we   could  find,   and  on  tires   that  looked  like 
they   couldn't  make   it  across  the  country,    came  back  to 
California.      I  was  inducted  into  the  U.S.    Army  at   the    Presidio   in 
Monterey    in  June  of   1944. 

I  was   sent  to  Camp  Barkley,    Texas,    which  was  located  near 
Abilene,    for  basic   training  in  a  medical   unit — field  medics.      It 
was  one  of   the  most  miserable  hot   summers  that  I  have  ever 
experienced.      It  was   that  experience  where   I   probably  lost  any 
enthusiasm   for  camping  that  might  have  been  latent   in  my  plans 
for   future  recreational    activities. 

Lage:  Made  you  wished  you'd  stayed  in  the  navy,    probably. 

Kendrick:      [laughs]      No,    I  never  reflected  back  on  having  made   that    choice. 
I   realize   that  basic   training  is  basic  training  no  matter  where 
you   go,    but  when  you're   experiencing  it,    it's  like   a   toothache. 
You  wish   it  would  go  away. 

I  might  say   that  my  army  experience  as  an  enlisted  person 
left  another  lasting  impression  that   upon  reflection   I   think  was 
good  for   me.      Because  associations  were  determined  by   the  first 
letter  of  your  last  name,    the  alphabet  had  more   to   do  with 
arranging  your   living  groups   than  anything  else.      You  live   in  a 
communal   relationship,    so  if   somebody  snored  loudly  or  was 


43 


Kendrick:      particularly  obnoxious,    you   couldn't  exclude  him  from  your   group 
because   his  last   name   placed  him  with   the  "Ks".      You  had  to 
somehow    get  along,    and  try  to  subjugate  your   own   peculiarities   to 
an  extent   that  you  were  not  obnoxious  yourself.      You  had  to 
develop  a   tolerance  for   other   people's   individualities    that    I 
think  did  me  a  lot  of  good. 

Lage:  You  meet   a  lot   of    types  you  probably  wouldn't  have  met. 

Kendrick:      You  meet  a  lot  of    types,    all    right,    that  open  up  your   eyes  a   good 
deal. 

Having  been  assigned  to  a  medical   unit  I  confess  was 
somewhat  of  a   self-selection  process   because   the   basic  education 
of   a  lot  of    these   inductees  was   pretty   good.      There  were  some 
college   graduates  along  with  me,    so  the   process   of    grouping  was 
not   completely   random    among  all   inductees.      Even  so,    there  were 
some  very   different  individuals   in   my    group. 

Following  basic  training,    we  all  were  advanced  to  some 
specialized  training  where   selection  was   based  on   background  and 
aptitude.      I  was   selected  for   special    training  as  a  medical 
laboratory   technician  and   sent   to   Fort  Benjamin  Harrison,    near 
Indianapolis,    Indiana,    for   three  months.      That  was  late  fall   and 
winter  of  1944.      Evelyn  came   back  and   spent  a   couple   of  months 
living  in  a   room    in  a  house   in  a   small   community  near  the  base. 
So  during  what  time   I   did   get  off  from   training,    we  had  some    time 
together   to  become  acquainted  with   Indianapolis.      There  are  not   a 
lot  of   things   I  remember  about  Indianapolis,    except   the  winter 
was  very   cold,    and  we   tired  of    eating  in  restaurants. 

After  finishing  that   program   to   become   a  laboratory 
technician — which   provided  me  with  training  in  parasitology, 
serology,    blood   chemistry,    and   urinalysis — I  felt    constructively 
trained,     and  I   enjoyed  the  expanded  knowledge    I   had  received. 
But  then  began  a  long  frustrating  period  waiting  for  an 
assignment  as  a  medical   laboratory   technician.      I  was  really 
disillusioned  when  I    didn't   go   right  out  into  a  medical 
laboratory,     either   in  a   field  unit   or  in  an  established  hospital. 

Lage:  They  must  have   needed  lab  technicians. 

Kendrick:      Well,    I  thought  so,    but   the  way   my   training  was  wasted  you  would 
have    never    guessed   it. 

After  my    Indianapolis  training  I  was   sent  to  Camp  Crowder, 
Missouri,   where   I  waited  about  a  month  for  an  assignment  and  was 
eventually   assigned  as  a  medical    orderly   in  a  hospital-train  unit 
operating  out   of   Stater.   Island,    New   York.      For  about  four 
months — which   turned  out   to  be   pretty   good  duty — I  rode  hospital 
trains  across   the    country.      This  was   the   time  when  we  were 


Kendrick:      engaged  in   the  Battle   of    the  Bulge  in  Europe,   which  resulted  ir.  a 
lot   of   casualties   to  our   troops.      Our   unit  was   receiving  these 
returning  casualties  and  distributing  them    to  army   hospitals 
across   the  country.      We  would  be   on  constant   duty    for  quite   a 
while  on  those  hospital   trains,    so  when  we  returned   to   Stater. 
Island,    we  would  have   several    consecutive   days   off   duty.      That 
gave   us  ample   time  to  explore  the  Big  Apple.      New    York   City  was   a 
marvelous   city    for  service   personnel    in  those   days.      You  could 
get  free   tickets  to  Broadway   plays  and   almost  any  entertainment 
event    scheduled.      So   I   saw    a  lot  of   New   York  City   at   that   time. 

But  I  still  was  not   doing  what   I   thought    I  was    going  to   be 
able   to  do,    and  that  was  working  in  the  laboratory.      I   suddenly 
was  sent   I  think  to   some    camp  in  Arkansas,    I    don't  recall  which 
one   that  was   now,    where  I  waited  yet  another  period  for  an 
assignment.      This   time   I  was  sent  to  an  army   hospital   in  Daytona 
Beach,    Florida.      That  was  in  the  summer  of   1945.      They   sent  me 
down  there  to  a  hospital,    finally,    as  a  laboratory  techni car- 
Hooray  I      I   thought   I  was   finally   going  to   get  to  do   something  for 
which   I  was   trained. 

So   I   showed  up  at   the  hospital,    and  the   doctor   in   charge 
took  one  look  at  me  and   said,    "You're  here   to   do  what?",    or  words 
to   that  effect.      He  was  less  than  cordial    in  his  welcome.      I 
didn't  learn   until   later   that   the  reason  he  was   not   cordial   was 
that   they   had  been  transferring  existing  personnel   with   some 
disabilities  from  his  hospital   laboratory.      They  were   sending 
them   overseas   to  field  hospitals.      Then  I   showed  up  able-bodied 
and  brand  new,    and  he  was  furious  that  the   army  would   take  an 
experienced  technician  who  really   wasn't  in  1A  physical    condition 
and  send  as  a  replacement   someone  who  was  physically   able  and 
inexperienced  and    [laughs]    who  ought   to  have  been  relocated  to 
the  war  zone. 

So   I   lasted   one   day.      The  officer  in  charge    said  he  wouldn't 
have  anything  to   do  with  me.      I   spent  another  week   or   so  waiting 
for  new    orders.      Those   came   in  due    course,    and  I  was   reassigned 
to   the  army    transportation   unit  at   Fort  Lawton,    Seattle, 
Washington. 

Lage :  Well,    you  got  all   about   the  country,    then. 

Kendrick:      I  boarded  the   train  in  Daytona  Beach  and  headed  for   Seattle, 

Washington.       You  can't   design  a   train  trip  much   longer   than  that 
in  the  United  States.      I   don't  recall  just  how  long  it   took   to 
get   there,    but   it  was  a  long  trek. 

In  the  late  summer  of  1945,    I  was  working  in   the   base 
hospital    in  the   serology    laboratory    at  Fort  Lawton,    my    first 
laboratory  assignment  after   being  trained   the   previous  year  as   a 


45 


Kendrick:      laboratory   technician.      That's  when   I  really   learned  how    to   draw 
blood  from    people's  arms.      We  were  doing  a   lot  of    serological 
surveys   of    service   personnel,    mostly   for  malaria. 

That  assignment  was  another  holding  operation  for  me  until 
medical   units  were  formed  and  assigned  to  hospital   units  aboard 
troop-ship   carriers.      I  was  assigned  to  a  medical   complement   unit 
aboard   the   army    troop   transport   called   the   SS  Marine  Flasher. 
(Flasher   is   the   name   of   a  fish.)      These  were   C-4   transports   that 
had   the    capacity   for  about  3,500    troops.      We  had  a   small   hospital 
on  board  with   125— bed   capacity.      The   unit's   personnel    consisted 
of   a  physician  who  was  the  medical    unit's    commander  and   the 
enlisted  personnel   who  provided  the  support.      There  were  about 
twelve   of   us,   and   I  was   the  laboratory   technician,   another   person 
was   the  pharmacist,    several    others  were  the  surgical   assistants, 
and  then  there  were  some  medical   assistants  and  male  nurses. 

The   ship  was  brand-new,    still   receiving  some  finishing 
touches  in  San  Francisco  when  I  was   sent  from   Seattle   to   San 
Francisco   in  the  late  fall   to  join  the   ship's   complement.      The 
interesting  thing  about  that   particular   ship  was   the  mixture    of 
units  which   composed  its  crew.      The  army  was  in  charge   of   the 
ship  in  terms  of  its   command.      The  merchant  marines  were  in 
charge   of    operating  the   ship,    so   the  captain  of    the   ship  was  a 
civilian   in  the  merchant  marines,    as  were  his   crew.      We   also  had 
a   small   navy   complement  on  it  to  handle  the  few   guns  and  what 
little  other  armament  that  we  had  for  our   protection.      So  we  had 
a  mixture  of   army,    navy,    and  merchant  marine  personnel   aboard 
this   ship. 

This  assignment   came  after  Hiroshima.      The  Marine  Flasher 
was  one  of  many   ships  which  at  that   time  were  being  assembled  for 
the   invasion  of  Japan.      So  when  the  war  came   to  an  end  in  August 
after  we   dropped  the  atomic   bomb,    there  were  a  lot   of 
reassignments  and  redirections.      As   I   recall,    we   sailed  on 
Christmas  Eve  with  replacement  troops  and  civilian   personnel    on 
board.      Our    destination  was  Jinsan   (now    called  Inchon),    Korea,    by 
way   of    Two  Jim  a,   Okinawa,   and  Shanghai. 

We  had  a  very    rough   crossing.      We  just  missed  the  tail   end 
of  a   devastating   typhoon  but  experienced   a  lot   of   rough   sea   near 
Okinawa.      There  wasn't  much   left  of   Okinawa  when  we  pulled  into 
one   of    the   bays   there.      As   the   sole  laboratory   technician,     I  had 
a   lot   of   experience   helping  with   the  diagnosis  of  venereal 
diseases,    and  on  the  return  trip  with   the  war  veterans   there  were 
interesting  diseases  involving  parasites   causing  intestinal 
problems  and  a  lot  of  malaria.      I  really   enjoyed   the  microscopic 
search   and  identification  of   parasites  in  the  blood  and  in  the 
intestinal   tract. 


46 


Kendrick:      We  had  a   good   stop  in  Shanghai  for   three   or  four    days.       I    dor.'t 
know    just  why   we  were  there,    but  we  were.      In  Korea  we  loaded  up 
the  vets  who  had  been  through  Okinawa  and   returned   them   to  Long 
Beach,    California.      It  was  many   years   later   that   I   discovered  a 
close   colleague  of  mine,    Ivan  Thomason,    was   among   those  3,500 
troops   on   board  the  Marine  Flasher  on  that   trip  to  Long  Beach. 
Ivan   grew    up  in  Davis  and  is  about   the  age   of    my   brother.      Ke   is 
now    a  professor  of   hematology   on  the  Riverside  campus,    is  also  a 
Wisconsin  plant  pathology   graduate,    and  another   Calif orr.iar.  who 
was   sent   back  to  Mecca   for  training — he  did  his   undergraduate 
work  on  the  Davis    campus. 

Lage :  Interesting  that  you  even  discovered  it. 

Kendrick:      I   don't  know  how  we   did,    but  we've  been  close  friends  for  a  long, 
long  time,    and  I   think  we  were  probably   reminiscing  about  our 
respective  experiences  in  the  war.      He  reminded  me   that   the 
troops   referred,    not   so  affectionately,    to   the   Marine   Flasher  as 
the   "Latrine  Splasher."      [laughter]      I   think   it  was    probably    more 
accurately   described  by   them   than  by   us.      We  had   good   duty    on  board 
ship.      Our  quarters  were   on  the   top   deck,    in  the  high-rent   district 
of   present-day   cruise   ships.      I  was   nevertheless  anxious   to   termin 
ate  my   service   career  as  soon  as   possible   because   the  war  was 
over.      I  was  anxious   to  get  on  with  my   graduate   school    program. 

We   docked  in  Long  Beach  in  about   February    of   1946.      The  war 
was  over,    and  as   I   indicated,    even  though   I  enjoyed  the  ship 
duty,    I  was  not  anxious   to   continue  it  much  longer.      I   stayed  out 
of    the  officer   training  program   because    I  decided  that  my   non- 
officer  status  would  shorten  my  obligation  to   stay   in   the 
service.       I   decided  to  petition  for  a   discharge   to  return  to 
school,   and  it  was   eventually   granted.      I  was   sent   to   the  Oakland 
Army  Base  and  then  to  Camp  Beale  near  Marysville  where  I  was 
discharged.      So  after   those   two  years,    because   of    all    the   changed 
assignments  and  waiting  which  prevented  me  from   being  in  one  spot 
long  enough  to  accumulate  any   kind  of   a  record,    I  was  separated 
at   the  rank  of   private  first   class.      I   made   one   advancement   in 
the    spring  of    1946. 

Well,    my   time   in  the  armed  service   is  a  period  that  I 
cherish  because  it  was  a   broadening  experience.      I   think  it 
influenced  my   subsequent   dealing  with  people  which  would  have 
been   different  if   I  hadn't  had   that   kind   of   experience.      And   one 
of    the   unique    things   about  my   experience   in  the   service   is  that  I 
possess  an  honorable   discharge  from   both   the  army  and   the   navy    in 
World  War  II,    with  eight  months  of    inactive  service   in  the  navy 
and  about  twenty-three  months  of  active   service  in  the  army. 
During  the  period   I  was   in  the   service,    with  the  exception  of    the 
three  months   I  was  in  Indiana,    Evelyn  lived  with  her   parents  on 
the  farm   between  Winters  and  Davis  and  worked  in  the  Bank  of 
America  in  Davis. 


47 


Completing  the  Ph.D.  ;      Research   on  Bacterial    Canker   of   Tomato 


Kendrick:      Evelyn  and   I   bundled  up  our  meager  belongings   and  again  trekked 
back  across   the    country   in  our  1937   Dodge    coupe,   which  by    that 
time  was   getting  close   to  being  worn  out,    but  it  was  all  we  had. 
We  returned  to  the   same  apartment  at  204  North   Mills   Street, 
which  had  become  a  plant  pathology  apartment  by   that  time, 
because  when  it  became  vacant  the  landlady  would  rent  it   to 
another   graduate   student   from    plant   pathology.      My   brother  and 
his  first  wife  lived  in  the   same  apartment  we  occupied  when  they 
went   back  to   school    in  subsequent  years.      So  in  May   of   1946   I 
went  back  to  Wisconsin  for  my  final  year   of    graduate  work. 

Because   there  had  been  so  much   time  elapsed  between  the 
anthracnose  work  and   getting  back  into   the    swing  of    things   in 
1946,    I  was   assigned  a   new    research   project.      This   time  Doc 
Walker   didn't   start  me  out  like  he   did  with   the   tomato 
anthracnose    problem.       He   said,     "I'd  like    to  have  you  take   over 
the   drip   system."     The   drip   system    consisted   of   a    greenhouse   full 
of    tubing  and   crocks  where  various  mixtures  and  concentrations  of 
nutrients  were   dripped  constantly  into  pots  of    sand  in  which  we 
grew    plants.      It  was  like   hydroponics  with  sand  added  for  support 
of    the    plants. 

He    said,    "I   think  we  ought  to  follow    the   study   that  Foster," 
another   of   his    graduate   students,    "has    done   on  fusarium  wilt   of 
tomato  with   a  bacterial   problem   of    tomato.      So  why   don't  you  do  a 
study   on  bacterial    canker   of   tomato?"     "Fine  with  me,    Doc,"   I 
said. 

Lage :  Was   that   the  usual    thing,    that  the  professor  would  more  or  less 

assign  a  research   topic? 

Kendrick:      It  was  the  usual    thing  with  Walker.      I   don't  know   that  that  was 

necessarily   true  for  all    of   his   students,    but  he   usually   laid  out 
the  general    outline   of    the  research   problem.      That  was  the  way   he 
operated  and  was  reason  enough  for  him   to   share   the  authorship 
with  his   students  of    the  journal   papers  which  arose  from   the 
research. 


So  my   thesis   problem    involved  a  study   of   nutritional   and 
environmental  influences  on  the   development   of   bacterial    canker 
of    tomato.      The   causal    organism    of    this   disease   is  a  mouthful, 
which   I've  written  here,    Corynebacterium   michiganense.      It  was   a 
disease  with  which   I  was  familiar  because  my   father  had  worked 
with  it  in  California,    and  it  was  a   particularly    destructive 
disease   for    tomatoes.       It's  highly   contagious   and  easy    to  pass  on 
to  other  plants  by  handling   them.      At   that   time  field-grown 
tomatoes  were   seeded  first   in  nursery  beds.      When  the  seedling 
plants  were   several  months  old,    they  were   pulled  and   then 


48 


Kendrick:      transplanted  into  the  field.      They   don't   do  that  any   more;    they 
seed  them   directly   into  the  field  and  this  is  the  best  way   to 
control   this  particular  disease.      But  when  tomato   seedlings  were 
grown  in  those   nurseries,    and  an  infection  occurred  in  a   dense 
population  of   plants,    it  was  easy    to  infect   a  lot   of    plants,    and 
it's   fatal.      You   don't   get  any    tomatoes   from    a   plant    that's 
infected  by   Corynebacterium. 

The  results  of   my   nutritional    study   were  published  in  the 
American  Journal  £f  Botany   in  1948,   Volume  35,    under   the   title 
"Plant   Nutrition  in  Relation  to  Disease   Development,     IV: 
Bacterial    Canker  of  Tomato."     Walker  and  his  students    developed   a 
series  of   nutritional   studies  of  various   diseases.      I  had  also 
taken  advantage   of    the  environmentally   controlled  facilities   that 
existed  at  Wisconsin  in  the  plant   pathology    greenhouse   to  study 
the  effect  of   soil   and  air   temperatures  on   predisposing   the 
tomato   to   subsequent   development   of   bacterial    canker.      So   I   got 
another  research  paper  out   of    the   thesis   that  was  entitled 
"Predisposition   of    Tomato   to  Bacterial    Canker."     That   one  was 
published  in  the  Journal   of  Agricultural   Research,    Volume  77, 
1948. 

To   show    that  none   of    the  time  I  spent   studying  tomato 
anthracnose  was  wasted,    I  also   published  a   paper  on  anthracnose 
of    tomato.      So  out   of    the   three  years   I   spent   in  Wisconsin,    three 
early   papers  resulted  from  my   professional  activity   and  from 
Walker's   overall    guidance    and  advice. 

Lage:  How  was  it   decided  to  publish   one  in  the  Journal  ^f   Agricultural 

Research  and  one   in  the  American  Journal  ^f  Botany?      Were  they   of 
a   different   nature? 

Kendrick:      Well,    the  Journal  jaf  Agricultural   Research  ceased  publication  in 
1949.      The  reason   that   the  American  Journal  _of   Botany  was 
selected  for   the  nutrition  study   was   because   that's  where   the 
series  had  started.      The  Journal  _of  Agricultural   Research  was 
also  a  highly    respected  journal. 

Lage:  Did   they  have   different   orientations? 


Kendrick:      The   paper  and  the  series   I   think  probably  would  have  been  more 
appropriately   published  in  the  Journal  of  Agricultural   Research 
or  in  Phytopathology,   which   is   the  journal    of    the  plant   pathology 
profession.      But  authors  who  published   the   first   paper   of    this 
series   chose   the  American  Journal   of   Botany   for  whatever  reason, 
and  maybe  Walker  just  wanted  to  spread  his   papers  around   a  little 
bit.      It  was  a   respected  journal   and  had  a   good  review    policy,    so 
that's  where  it  went. 


49 


Kendrick :      The  Journal  of  Agricultural   Research  was   published   by    the  United 
States  Department   of   Agriculture,    and  as  its  name  implied,    it  was 
intended  that  a  wide  variety   of   research  related   to  agriculture 
be   published  in  that  journal.      It  had  a   good  and  rigorous   review 
policy.      The   plant   pathologists   discovered   that  it  was   a 
prestigious   place   to  publish   their  own  research,    and  in  the 
latter  part  of  its  existence,    it   became  more   of   a   plant   pathology 
journal    than  a   general    agricultural    research  journal.       I   think 
the  USDA,    seeking  some  economy,    decided   that   they   really    couldn't 
support  a  journal   publication  which  was  used  almost  exclusively 
by   one   segment   of    the  agricultural   scientists.      So  it  was 
terminated  about   two  volumes  after   the  one  which   I  published  in. 
We  were   sorry   to   see  it   go  because  it  was  a   good  publication  and 
had   good   circulation.      So  it  was  a   real    loss  as  far  as   plant 
pathologists  were    concerned. 

Well,    the  best  thing  about  finishing  my   work  at  Wisconsin  is 
that  Walker  wouldn't  let  you   get   away  with  just  an   unpublishable 
thesis.      You  had  to  almost   immediately  prepare  your   thesis  for 
journal   publication.      As  you  can  see,    within  a   period   of   a  year 
following  the   granting  of   my   doctor's  degree,    we  had  some 
publications   to   show    for   my   research   efforts. 

When  I   returned  to  Wisconsin  in  1946,    I  was  given  another 
Wisconsin  Alumni  Research   Foundation  assistant  ship.      In  addition 
I  had  my  GI  benefits,    so  we  felt  that  we  were  living  on  easy 
street.      I  recall    I  was   paid  about   $250   a  month.      Since   the  WARF 
assistantship  took  care  of    the  tuition,    and  the  GI  Bill   took  care 
of   the  books  and  all    the   other  fees  associated  with  school,    we 
determined   that  Evelyn   didn't   need  to  work,    and  she  didn't.       She 
spent  her   time  typing  my   reports  and  my   thesis.      She  earned   every 
bit   of    the  remuneration  that  was  coming  our  way.      Our  recreation 
was  modest;   it   consisted  mostly  of  bridge   games  with  our 
colleagues,    an  occasional   show,    but  most  of   the  time  was  pretty 
much  involved  in  the  research   program.      I  had   to   do  a   thorough 
job  of    the  research,    accumulate  and  analyze   the  data,    and  then 
write  about  it,    and  all   that  was    done  within  a  year.      We  figured 
that  if  you  spent   much  more  time  than  three  years  in  the  program 
to   get  a   Ph.D.,    something  was  wrong.      That    certainly   is   not    the 
case    nowadays. 


Lage: 

Kendrick:      Oh,    five  or   six  years. 


In  your   field,    plant   pathology,    how    long  would  you  say   people 
spend  now? 


Lage:  But   three  was   the   average   then? 

Kendrick:      It   was   not  just   in  plant   pathology.      Three  was  about  average. 
They  wanted  you  in  and  out   of    the   place  as   soon  as   possible, 
[laughter]      They    didn't  want  you  to  hang  around.      One   of    the 


50 


Kendrick:      reasons   that  these  two  colleagues  whom    I   spoke  about  earlier 
incurred  Dr.    Walker's   displeasure  was   that   they   were   taking 
longer   than  he  felt  was  necessary.      They    did  not    go  into   the 
service;    they   were  doing  some  assistar.tship  work,    not  necessarily 
associated  with  their  thesis  work.      But   they  were  very  leisurely 
about   getting  things    done,    and  they   were   stretching  it   out    too 
long  in  his  judgment,    and  he  wanted  to  put   the  fire   under   their 
feet   to  get   them   moving. 


Appointment  at   the  Citrus  Experiment   Station,    Riverside 


Kendrick:     Well,    I  took  my  oral   examination,    the  final   examination,    in  May 
of  1947.       I  had  negotiated  for  a   position  at   the  University    of 
California's    Citrus   Experiment   Station  during  that   spring  of 
1947.      This  opportunity    came   to   my  attention  through  an  inquiry 
to  Dr.   Walker,   who   seemed   to  be   on  the  inside    circuit  for   any 
position  which  was   available  anywhere  for   plant   pathologists. 
His   students,    if   not  in  demand,    at  least  had  a   good  running  start 
on  positions  just   because   they  were   Dr.    Walker's   students.       His 
reputation  for   training  was   not   confined  to  just  Wisconsin. 

So  it  was   to  our  benefit  to  be   one   of  Walker's   students.      Ke 
brought  to  my   attention  that  the  Department  of   Plant  Pathology   at 
Riverside  was  looking  for  someone  to  work  in  the  area   of 
vegetable   pathology   at   the   Citrus  Experiment   Station,    in 
collaboration  with  John  Middleton.      John  was   the   only   plant 
pathologist   in  southern  California  working  with  vegetables,    and 
it  was  a  little   overwhelming  for   one   person  to   cover. 

Dr.    L.    J.    Klotz    had  just  assumed  the  headship  of    that 
department,    following  the  retirement  of  Howard    [S.]    Fawcett,    who 
was  the  longtime   previous  head  of   plant   pathology    at  Riverside. 
Fawcett  was  a  very  famous  citrus  pathologist  who  came  from 
Florida  and  had  made   a   tremendous  reputation  for  himself.      I 
never  really   got  to  know   Dr.    Fawcett;    I  was  acquainted  with  him, 
but  he  had  retired  by    the   time   I   showed  up.      So  my   negotiation 
was  with   Dr.    Klotz. 

He  was   negotiating  at   the   time  with   two  of   us.      One  was  Dr. 
Baines,   who  was  at  Purdue  University  at   the   time,   whom  he  was 
anxious   to  have  join  the  department  to  pursue   nematology   problems 
in   citrus,    and   I  was   the   other. 

Drs.   Klotz   and  Middleton  finally   agreed  that   I  was   the 
person  they  wanted,    and   I  wasted  no   time  in  agreeing  to  return   to 
California,   which  was   really   a  lucky    circumstance.      I   did  not   have 
my  heart   set  on  returning  to  California  when   I  went  into    graduate 
training.      I  was   prepared   to   go  wherever  the  opportunity   seemed 


51 


Kendrick:      to   present  itself.      I   participated  in  the  formal    graduation 

ceremonies  at  the  University  of  Wisconsin  and  received  my  Ph.D. 
degree  on  May  24,  1947.  It  is  interesting  to  note  the  relative 
size  between  the  undergraduate  bachelor  of  arts  degree  from  the 
University  of  California  and  the  Ph,D.  underneath  it  [points  to 
framed  degrees  on  wall — laughter]  — 

Lage:  The  University   of   California   degree  must   be   three   times   the   size. 

Kendrick:      I   think  the  importance   of    the  two  bear  little  relationship  to 
their   size.      But  anyway,    it  was   a  happy   day   in  Evelyn's  and   my 
life.      My    father  and  mother   came  from  Davis  to  attend  the 
graduation.      I   felt   I  was  on  top  of   the  world  because   the   dean   of 
the  graduate   school    at  Wisconsin  was  presenting  the  candidates 
for   graduate    degrees   to   the   president   of    the   university.      He 
saved   the   Ph.D.'s    until    the  last    group   on  the   program.       There 
were   some   M.D.'s   awarded  at   the    ceremony  and   they   honored   the 
medical    graduates  adequately.      But  when  the  dear,  came  to  the 
Ph.D.'s,    he  had  nothing  but    praise   for   the    people  who  were   being 
awarded  the  highest  academic   degree   universities   could   give.      He 
really  laid  it  on  about  the  tremendous  accomplishments  and 
promise   of    these   graduates  and  how    much   the  people  of   the  world 
would  benefit  from   the  work   of    these   scholars  in  the  future.      You 
sort  of   felt  like  you  walked  across  the  platform  with  a  cloud 
under  your  feet.       I   think  he  laid  it  on  a  little   strong,    but  he 
was   making   sure   that    the  M.D.'s  realized  that   they   were  just 
practitioners,    and    the    PKD.'s   were    the    creative    scholars. 

Anyway,    we  quickly   packed  up  and  headed  back  to  California 
in  our  1937   Dodge   coupe   once  again  and  arrived  in  Riverside   the 
second  week  of  June   in  1947.      My   appointment  had  begun  on  June  1 
as  a  junior   plant   pathologist  in  the  Agricultural  Experiment 
Station. 

Lage:  So   this  was  a   pure  research   position? 

Kendrick:  Yes,    and   the   salary  was   the  magnificent  sum    of    $3,700   a  year. 

Lage:  Well,    it  was  magnificent   compared  to  what  you  had. 

Kendrick:  It  was   sure   a  lot  more   than   I  was    getting  as  a   graduate   student. 

Lage:  Was  that   competitive  with   salaries  at  other  institutions? 

Kendrick:  Yes. 

Lage:  Were   there  very   many   openings   at   the  time? 

Kendrick:      As    I   recall,    there  were   not   a  lot   of   openings,    but   I   didn't  make 
this   choice   completely   on  my   own.      I  was  encouraged  by   Dr. 
Walker,   who  knew   a  little  bit  about  what  was  at  Riverside,    to 


52 


Kendrick:      accept   that   position.       I  had   a  little  advantage  for   the    position 
at  Riverside   because   of    my    father  and  his   colleague,    Dr.    Gardner, 
who  knew    people  at  Riverside.      Also,    some   of    their   colleagues  had 
been  a    part   of    Riverside's  early   staff   and  had  returned   to 
Berkeley.      Dr.    Barrett,    who  was   back  in  the   Plant   Pathology 
Department  at  Berkeley,    was  one  of   the  early  staff  members  at 
Riverside. 

Riverside  had  a   reputation  at  that  point  as  a  place  without 
a  lot  of   rigor.      I  think  the  reason  that  it   got  that   reputation 
was   because   it  was   solely   research-oriented.      It   did  not  have   any 
formal   student  instruction  at   that   point.      I   think   the  reputation 
wasn't   deserved  because   they   had  many    highly  qualified  and 
productive  staff  members,    but  I   can  recall   hearing   the    comment, 
•XDh,    you're   going  to   go    to  Riverside    to  retire?"  about   a   senior 
colleague  who  was  moving  to  Riverside. 

Lage:  That's  a  bit  hard  to   take. 

Kendrick:      Certainly   at   twenty-seven,    I  wasn't   ready   to   think  about 

retiring.      And  it  had  an  exciting  new    program.      Middleton  was  a 
vigorous  young  man,    and  the   Citrus  Experiment   Station  was 
beginning  to  add  staff   to  its  program    to  broaden  its  attention  to 
things.      Some  of  it  you  will   see  in  reading  Al  Boyce's 
autobiography.*      I    ought    to   say    that  he   certainly   didn't  regard 
Riverside  as  a   place  to  retire   because  he  had   a  lot   of    rigor  and 
activity.      I  think  it  was  a  case  of   being  a   place  where   the  sole 
attention  was  research;    it   didn't  have   the   distractions    of 
academic  life  at  a   regular  campus  with  its   committees,    the 
academic   senate,    and   students'   schedules   to  interfere  with   doing 
research   in  the  field.      Some   of    that  criticism,    I  think,    was 
envy. 


*  Alfred  M.    Boyce,    Odyssey   ol  an  Entomologist.    UC  Riverside 
Foundation,    1987.      Boyce  had   a  leading  role  in  the   Citrus 
Experiment   Station  from   1952   to  1968. 


53 


III      CITRUS  EXPERIMENT  STATION,    RIVERSIDE 

Work  of    an  Agricultural    Researcher 
[Date  of    Interview:      9/15/87]    ## 

Lage:  Today  we're    going  to  focus  on  Riverside,    your   Riverside 

experience. 

Kendrick:     Last   time   I   described  finishing  our   stay  at  Madison,    the 

graduation  ceremonies,   bundling  up  what  meager  possessions  we 
had,    and  once   again  getting  that  much  worn-out  1937  Dodge   coupe 
back  across    the    country. 

We  didn't  quite  make  it  to  Riverside   on  the  date  of   my 
official  appointment,   which  was  June  1,    19A7,    but  we   did  arrive 
in  town  on  the  6th  of  June.      I  had  obtained  permission  from   Dr. 
KLotz   to  delay    my   arrival   by   stopping  briefly  in  Davis  and 
consulting  about   some  of   the  disease  problems  associated  with 
California's  agriculture. 

The  impression  we  had  coming  over  Caj  on  Pass  was  really  a 
thrilling  one.      We  arrived  in  the  early   evening  when  it  was  still 
daylight.      In  1947,    of   course,    smog  had  not  taken  over  the 
environment,    and  you  could  see  forever.      Riverside  was  located  in 
an  inland  valley,    and  as  we  drove  in  we  could  see  the  many  palm 
trees  and  the   citrus    groves  and   smelled  the  fragrance   of   the 
orange   blossoms.      It  just  looked  like   an  ideal   place   to  begin  our 
life  and  to  settle   down  and  realize   that  this  was  a  bit   close  to 
pa  radi  se . 

We  enjoyed  Riverside.      In  those   days,    it  was  a  city   of   about 
45,000   people:     large  enough  to   provide  you  with   some   degree   of 
anonymity    if  you  wanted  it,    but  small  enough  to  acquire  friends 
and  recognition  if   that  was  what  you  wanted.      We  felt 
particularly   fortunate  in  being  able   to  settle  in  Riverside 
because  it  seemed  to  be  only  one  hour  away  from   everything  that 
was   fun  to  do.      It  was   an  hour   from  Los  Angeles;   it  was  about  an 


54 


Kendrick: 


Lage: 


Kendrick! 


Lage: 
Kendrick: 


hour  from   the  beaches  of   the  Pacific  Ocean;    it  was  an  hour  away 
from  Lake  Arrowhead  and  the  mountains;   it  was  an  hour   away    from 
the   desert  and  Palm  Springs.      It   seemed  to  be  just  about  an 
hour's   drive  from    a  whole  array   of   attractive  extracurricular 
kinds   of   activities,    which  we   participated  in  in  due   course. 

Dr.    L.    J.    KLotz    was   the  chairman  of    the  Department   of    Plant 
Pathology  at  that   time.      He  was  the   person  with  whom    I  negotiated 
the  employment   in  the  first  place.      He  was  a  newly  appointed 
department   chairman  succeeding  Dr.   Howard  Fawcett  who  had  been 
the  previous   chairman  for  many  years.      (I   think  at  that  stage   of 
the   development  of  leadership  in  departments  they  were   called 
department  heads  which  was  later   changed  to  chairmanships.) 

My  association  was  to  be  with  Dr.   John  T.    Middleton,    who  was 
working  with   the  diseases  of   vegetables  in  southern  California. 
The  position  I  occupied  was  a   new    position,    created  for   the 
specific  purpose   of  working  with  John  and  expanding  the  efforts 
of  the  department  into  a   study   of   diseases   of  vegetables  in  that 
part  of    the  state. 


Was  this  a   new    direction  for   the  station? 
name   "Citrus  Experiment   Station."     How — 


I'm   thinking  of    the 


Yes.      We   spent  a   good  deal   of    time   trying  to  explain  to   the 
community   that  the  Citrus  Experiment  Station  contained  people 
working  on  crops  in  addition  to  citrus  and  subtropical   plants. 
The  use  of   the  name.    Citrus  Experiment  Station,   was  legitimate 
because   the  station  was  established  originally  to  work  on  citrus 
problems  primarily.      The  Department  of   Plant   Pathology  at 
Riverside   took  on  crops  other   than  citrus  and  dates  with  the 
appointment  of  George  Zentmyer  and  John  Middleton.      Both   of    those 
men  were  appointed,    I  believe,    about   1944.     John  may   have  been 
appointed  a  little  earlier,    but  not  much.      John's  addition  to   the 
staff  was   solely   for   the  purpose   of   addressing  the  problems  of 
vegetables.      Dr.    Zentmyer  was   given  the  responsibility   of 
pursuing  avocado   diseases,    primarily. 

So  it  was  a  fairly  new  expansion. 

That's   true.       I  would  say   in  the  early   forties.      Date  problems 
had  always   been  handled  by   Dr.   Donald  Bliss,   another  member   of 
the  department,    in  addition  to  his   citrus   studies.      The  date 
plantings  were  in  the   Palm   Springs  and  Indio  areas.      So   prior   to 
the  early  1940s  nearly   everybody   else  in  the  department  was 
working  on  citrus   problems. 

Southern  California,    or  our  area  of   jurisdiction,    covered 
San  Luis  Obispo   County  and  all    counties   south   of    that.      So  we  had 
a  lot  of   geography   to  handle  and  felt  relatively   uninhibited  in 
pursuing   the   probltms. 


55 


Kendrick:      I  was  appointed  as   a  junior   plant   pathologist  at   the  annual 

salary   of    $3,700.      At  a    reception  for  my    retirement,    the  present 
dean,    Dean  Sherman,    had   gone   back  into  the  files  and  had 
retrieved  a   copy   of   my   appointment  document.      He  had  it  framed 
and   gave  it   to  me.      I   said,    "I   thought   there  was  a   directive 
covering  the  purging  of   files  to  eliminate  documents  which  were 
beyond   their   useful   lifetime."      [laughs]      It  was  not   until    I    got 
this   particular  copy   of    my   appointment   that  I  discovered  that  the 
position  had   been  authorized  at   $3,900   a  year.      So   somebody   had 
decided  to  save   some  money. 

Lage:  And   see   if   they    could   get  you  for  less. 

Kendrick:      And   got  me  for   $3,700   a  year. 

Lage:  I   think  it's   amazing  that  you  remember. 

Kendrick:      Well,    what   I  do  remember  was  that  during  the  first  year  and  a 

half,    there  were   some   unexpected  salary  adjustments.      That  was   a 
period  when  the  University   was  providing  regular  salary 
adjustments  because  their   salaries  had  fallen  behind   those  in 
other   comparable   educational    positions.      I   felt   that   I   had  really 
stumbled  into  a   great  opportunity   for   salary    growth. 

The  fact   that   the  position  was  newly  created  and  I  was  not 
occupying  a  vacated  position  meant   that   I  had  an  opportunity   to 
kind  of   establish  my   own  program   of  work.      The  justification  for 
the   position   provided,   however,    some  restriction  in  the  areas   in 
which   I  began  my    research   career.      Dr.    Middleton  and  I   did  quite 
a  bit  of   traveling  to  begin  with,    so   that   I   could  become 
acquainted  with  the  vegetables  in  southern  California,    which  were 
quite  extensive  and  varied.      And   also  to   gain  some  appreciation 
for   the  diseases  that  were  affecting  them. 

I  recall   a  meeting  with   the   then   director   of   the   Citrus 
Experiment   Station  which  was  little  more  than  a  courtesy  visit. 
Dr.   Leon  Batchelor  was   the   director  at   that   time.      A  very   stern 
and  proper  New   England  gentleman,    he  seemed  not  to  smile  very 
much.      I  noticed  Al  Boyce    described  him  in  his   book  as  on   the 
face   of    things   pretty    stern  and  strict,    but   if  you  got   to  know 
him,   quite  warm  and   concerned.      He,    nevertheless,   fit   my   mental 
image    of    a  director.      He  welcomed  me  to  the  staff  at  the  Citrus 
Experiment  Station.      He   did  use   the  occasion  to   point  out   that 
the   staff  was   there  to  solve  problems  for  the  grower  and  wished 
me  well.     But  I  didn't  see  a  lot  of  him  after  that. 

Dr.   Klotz    was  a  warm   and  very    informal   person.     Very 
supportive,    but  not  one   that  really  had   a  lot   of   advice   to   give 
on  how    to  get  my   program   underway.      My   guide   through  all   this  was 
really  John   Middleton. 


56 


Lage:  They    said  you're   there   to   solve   problems   for   the    grower,    but   did 

they    give   any    further   direction  on  how    to  relate  to  the  grower? 

Kendrick:  No,  it  was  pointed  out  that  the  Citrus  Experiment  Station  could 
be  asked  about  field  problems,  and  we  were  there  to  solve  those 
problems. 

Lage:  To  find  out  what  they  were? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      So   the  early   experiments  with  John  and  our   travels 

throughout   most   of    that  region  in  southern  California  was  a 
gigantic  learning  experience  for  me.      Although  at  Wisconsin   I  had 
done   a  little   traveling,    it  was  in  this  first  assignment  that  I 
got  some  appreciation  of   the  real  world  in  terms   of    plant 
pathology   and  the  problems  associated  with  growing  plants  in 
large   commercial  areas.      The  agriculture   of  Wisconsin  and 
California  aren't  even  close   to  being  similar:      the  diseases  were 
different;    the  magnitude  and  size   of    the  operations  were 
different.       So   it  was   really   like    starting  all   over  again. 

One  of   the  things  I  noticed  most  was   the   gap   between 
instruction,    where  we  were  mostly  looking  at  pure  cultures  and 
single   diseases,    to  a  natural   situation,    where  we  were   dealing 
with   complexes  and  multiple  infections  by  various  pathogens.      It 
is  really  very   different.      I   didn't  have  much  experience  and 
formal    training  in  how   you  begin  to  sort  out   those   complexes  and 
isolate  the  causes.      So  that  knowledge   came  from  learning  by    the 
"seat   of    the   pants"  mostly. 

John  and  I   had  formed  a  pretty   good  team,    and  we  were  very 
compatible.      Some  things  we  did  together,   and  other  things  we   did 
separately.      He  suggested  that  I  take   on  the  responsibility   of 
looking  after   the  lima  bean  industry   of   southern   California, 
which  was  fairly  extensive  at  that  time,    concentrated  some   in  San 
Luis  Obispo   County   but  mostly   in  Ventura,    Orange,    Los  Angeles, 
and   San  Diego   Counties.      Also,    to  look  at   pepper   diseases,    both 
of   sweet   pepper  and  of    chili    pepper. 

I  found  that   the  peppers  were  infected  mostly  with  virus 
diseases   of  various   kinds   that   needed   to   be  identified  and 
catalogued.      The  lima  bean  problems  were  mostly  root  rets 
complicated  with  some  infestations  by   a  worm   called  the  wire 
worm. 

Lage:  Would  there  have  been  a  growers  association  that  came   to  the 

Experiment   Station  and  asked  for  help  on   these    problems? 

Kendrick:      There  was  a  lima  bean  growers   association,    yes,    but   they    really 
had  not    come   to   the  Experiment  Station  as  an  association.      The 
organization  in  the  southern  part  of    the  state   that  looked  after 
all  vegetables  was   called  the  Western  Growers  and  Shippers 


57 


Kendrick:      Association.      It  is  now   known  as   the  Western  Growers  Association, 
and  is  an  organization  of   vegetable   growers  in  Arizona  and 
California,    a  fairly   significant  and  powerful    growers-supported 
organization.      That  was   the  association  where  we  made   contact   if 
we    needed   to. 

I  would  say   that  the  most   significant  grower  contact  was 
through   the    [Agricultural]    Extension  Service  at   that    time.      It 
was   really   in  response   to  some   of    the  extension  staff   in  Ventura 
County   that   I  started  my   field  associations  with  extension  and 
with   the  field  problems.      It  was  through  extension  that  I  was 
introduced  to  and  became  acquainted  with  a  number  of   growers  with 
whom    I  worked  and  had  field  experiments  on  their  properties. 

So  rather   than  working  with  the   commodity  associations  per 
se,    even  though   I  w  as  acquainted  with  them,    extension  personnel 
played  a  more  prominent  role  in  my   field  work.      In  this  regard  it 
was  the  extension  personnel   who  stayed  in  touch  with  commodity 
and  grower  associations,    so  it  was  only   natural    to   cooperate  with 
the  extension  people  in  dealing  with  field  problems. 

Lage:  It   seems  like  the   crops  and  the   problems  must  have   been  multiple, 

and  how  you  choose — 

Kendrick:     Well   they   were.      I've  mentioned  that   I  started  with  those   two 
crops,    but  I  quickly  found  myself  working  with   tomato   blight, 
celery   pink  rot,    cantaloupe   crown  blight,    and  smog  damage   to 
leafy  vegetables.      I  worked  also  with   carrot   blight.      There 
seemed  to  be   no  limitation  to  the  work.      At  one  point   I  was 
dealing  with  a   problem   of   cucumbers  that  were  being  grown  for 
pickles   in   the  El   Monte  region. 

Most   of    the  rural   area  where  I  spent  much  of   my   time   in 
those   early   days   is  now,    of   course,    composed   of   incorporated 
cities  of  Los  Angeles   County.      But   in  the  days  when  we   started 
our  work,   Los  Angeles   County  was   the  leading  agricultural    county 
in  the  nation,    as  far  as  the  value   of   the  commodities  that  were 
being  produced   there  was    concerned.      The  major  reason  for   that 
ranking  was   due   to   the  concentration  of    dairies  in  Los  Angeles 
County   to  supply   the  milk  needed  for   that  large   population. 
Those   dairies   subsequently  were  forced  to  move,    and  moved  in  two 
directions.      They   moved   to  western  San  Bernardino   County   and 
concentrated  in  the  Chino  area.      The  rest   of    them    sold  out  and 
moved  into  the   southern   part   of   the  San  Joaquin  Valley. 

Lage:  So  you  were   there  during  the  period  of   the  transformation  of  Los 

Angeles   County? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      Long  Beach   and  Lakewood — Long  Beach   of    course  was  a   city    at 
the   time,    but  Lakewood  was  to  some  extent  a   bean   patch.      Orange 
County    was   still   Orange  County   when  we  were  there,    and  the  El 


58 


Kendrick:      Monte- Covina-Puente  area   produced  vegetables,    citrus,   and   some 
ornamentals.      Carrots  were   concentrated  in   Chino  and  El   Monte, 
but  the  El   Monte-Covina  area  was  an  important   cauliflower  and 
cucumber  area,    grown  for  gherkins,    little  pickles.      Cabbage, 
celery  was  produced  in  Venice.     So  it  was  really  quite 
agricultural.      The  San  Fernando  Valley    was   full    of   walnuts  and 
citrus,    mainly    tree    crops. 

The  rapidity   with  which  all  those  regions  were  developed 
into  urban  settlements  accounts  for   the  rapid   development   of 
smog,    as  well  as  leaving  nostalgic  memories  of  what  it  used  to 
be. 

Lage:  It's  a  beautiful    setting.      You  have   to  remind  yourself   now   when 

you   go   down   there  and   can  hardly   see   through   the    smog. 

Kendrick:      There  was  never  really  any   doubt   in  my   mind  as  what  my   Experiment 
Station  responsibility  was.      The  job,    as   I  indicated,    was 
justified  on  the  basis   that   Middleton  needed  assistance   in 
addressing  the  multitude   of   problems  associated  with   the    great 
variety   of  vegetables  in  that  part  of    the  country.      They    were  a 
valuable   part   of    the   total   agriculture. 


Agricultural    Constituency    in  Southern  California 


Kendrick:      The  Los  Angeles  Chamber  of   Commerce  was  a  very    influential 

organization  in  the  agricultural    circle.      It  had  a  subcommittee, 
an  agricultural   committee,    which  was  the  organization  that  had 
more  than  j  ust  a   casual   interest  and  influence  in   the    development 
of    the  program   in  southern   California  to  address  agricultural 
problems  of   citrus,    avocadoes,    and  vegetables. 

This  agricultural   committee's  chair  was  Doc  Clements,    who 
when  I  first  became  acquainted  with  him  was  about  eighty-five 
years  old.      He  was   really   recognized  as   the  patriarch   of    the 
organized  influence   on  the  University   of    California   to  focus 
attention  on  agricultural   problems  in  that  part  of    the  state. 

He  also  was  the  organizer  of  what  was   called  the  San  Andreas 
Group.     Les  Remmers,    one  of   my   farmer-cooperators  with  whom   I 
worked  in  the  San  Juan   Capistrano  area,    introduced  me   to   this 
group  and  invited  me  to  several   of    their  social   events.      San 
Andreas   Canyon,    close  to  Palm  Springs,    was  an  area  where   they 
used  to  retreat   to,    and  a   number  of    them   had  built  desert  homes 
there.      They  would  meet   there   on  a   semiannual    basis   for   bull 
sessions,    discussions,    poker   playing  and   camaraderie. 


59 


Kendrick:      You  felt   privileged  if  you  were  a   part   of    that  San  Andreas  Group, 
because   they   were   the  movers  and  shakers  of   the  agricultural 
scene  in  southern   California.      They  had  no  reluctance   to   invite 
President   Robert  Gordon  Sproul    or  Dean  Claude  Hutchison  to  meet 
with  them  in  order  to  arm-twist  them  into  allocating  resources  to 
augment   the  efforts  in  agriculture  in  southern   California.      The 
leaders  involved  with  major  citrus  holdings,    such  as   the  Limonera 
Ranch,    the  Sespe  Ranch,    and  Sunkist  and  Blue   Anchor  were  all  part 
of    that   power    structure. 

Lage:  Was   that   part  of    the  power   structure  that  got  the  station 

established  in   the  first   place,   which   I   guess    goes  way   back? 

Kendrick:      Well,    I   think  their  forerunners  were  certainly   instrumental    in 

doing  so,    although  I    don't   know.      The  history    that   I  read   is   not 
that   clear  on  that   subject.      But   there  were  individuals  who 
ultimately  were  a  part  of   that   structure  that  were  instrumental 
in   capturing  the   attention   of    the  University's  Agriculture 
Experiment  Station  and   they    devoted   their   effort   to   getting  a 
station  established.      The   station  really   owes  its  origin  to  a 
pathological   problem  in  walnuts,   which  is  why   I  think   the  first 
person  sent   down  to   southern  California  to  establish  the  Whittier 
lab  was  Ralph  E.    Smith,   who  was   the   chairman  of   the  Department   of 
Plant    Pathology    here   at  Berkeley. 

He  was   the  first   director   of    the  Citrus  Experiment  Station, 
but  it  was  really  not   the   Citrus  Experiment  Station  at   that   time. 
It  was  the  Whittier  Laboratory,    which  was  a  pathological 
laboratory  established  to  address  the   problems   of  walnuts.      When 
it  looked  like   there  was   going  to  be   a  bigger  commitment  than 
just  to  walnuts,    several   communities  vied  for   the  location  of  an 
experiment   station.      They   were  Pomona,    the  San  Fernando  Valley 
interests,    and   the  Riverside  interests.      There  is   a  history   of 
Board  of   Regents'    action,    resulting  somewhat   surprisingly   in 
selecting  Riverside,    but   they  were  heavily  lobbied   to   do   that. 

There  might  be   confusion  about  the  name  "Citrus  Experiment 
Station"  when  the  initial   problem   bringing  Ralph   Smith   to 
southern   California  was  a  walnut   disease  problem.      However,    there 
was  so  much  more   citrus  acreage  than  walnut  acreage  in  southern 
California,    and  so  many  problems  with  citrus,    that  the  southern 
California  agricultural   interests  were   determined  to  have  an 
experiment   station  devoted  to  citrus  problems  too.      I   think  it 
was  foreordained   that   the  University's   agricultural    research 
effort  in  southern  California  be   named  the  Citrus  Experiment 
Station,    because   of    the   prominence   of   citrus  in  the  region  at 
that    time. 

I   don't  have   my    hands   on   it — I  think  it's  in  the  hands   of 
Loy   Sammet — but   there's   a  history    that  Ralph  E.    Smith  wrote  about 
his  own  involvement  in  plant  pathology   development  in  the 


60 


Kendrick:      University   of   California,   which  includes   a  lot   of    the  early 

activity    in  the  southland.      It   is  valuable   in  terms  of    filling  in 
the  record  and   the  early   activities  as   far  as   the   Citrus 
Experiment   Station  is   concerned.       I  know    that   there's  a   copy    of 
it  in  the   plant   pathology   department  at  Berkeley.      So   the 
record's   not  lost. 

Lage:  I    think   that   it's   important   just   to  refer   to  its  existence   here. 

Kendrick:      The  successor  to  Doc  Clements,   who  was  a   physician  and  had   a 

special    interest  in  plants  and  their  problems,    was  Calvin  Bream, 
an  employee  at  the  Los  Angeles  Chamber  of   Commerce.      He  took  over 
the  responsibility    for   this   subcommittee  in  agriculture.      I 
believe  that  the  agricultural  subcommittee   of    the  Los  Angeles 
Chamber   of    Commerce    still   exists  today.      While   they   don't   have   an 
activity  and  interest  in  farms   that   they  had  in  the   thirties  and 
forties  and  fifties,    they    have  maintained  themselves  as  an 
interested   unit.      But   during   those  years   of   Clements  and   Calvin 
Bream,    it  was  a   source   of   support  and  contact  with  the  community. 
You  always  made   certain  that  they  knew  what  you  were   doing  and 
what  your   needs  were.      As   I  said,    my   assignment  with  the 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station  was  never  in   doubt:      the   position 
was  justified  and   created  on  the  basis  that  whoever  occupied  it 
would  address   the   problems   of  vegetables   in  southern   California. 


Investigating  Vegetable  Diseases 


Kendrick:      The  experiment   station  operates  on  a   project    system.      Everyone 

who  is  a  member  of    the  regular   staff  works  on  approved   projects. 
To  have  a  project   approved,    you  conceived  of   how    and  what  you 
wanted  to  work  on,    and  gave  it  to  the   department    chairman  for 
review    and  approval.      The   chairman  would  sign   off  and  send  it   to 
the  associate   director  of   the  experiment   station,    who  would   sign 
off  and  then  send  it  on  to  the  director,    and  then  the  director 
would   sign  off.      It  was  really    the  first   introduction  to   the 
bureaucracy    that   I  was   ultimately   to  become   a  part  of.      And  then 
we  were  expected  to  file  annual   reports  on  those   projects,    on 
what  was  accomplished,   what  had  been  published,   what  we  proposed 
to  do  in  the  future,   how  we  were   proposing  to   go  about  it,    and  a 
modest  literature  review. 

The  project   that   I  was  associated  with  most  of    the  time  that 
I  was  at  Riverside  was  really   conceived,    I   thought,    with  a   great 
deal    of   wisdom.      It  was   not  very   satisfying  to  the  administration, 
but  it  was  extremely   satisfying  to  John  and  me.      It  was   Project 
1085,    and  the  title  was  "An  Investigation  of  Vegetable  Diseases 
in  Southern  California,"  which  meant  that  we   did  net  have  to 
revise   that   project.      It   had  no  termination  date.      We  kept   it 


61 


Kendrick:      current  by  identifying  subunits   under   the   project,    as  we  would 
change   our  work  schedule  to  address  different  problems  with 
different   diseases  and   different  host   plants.      It  was   a 
constantly   changing  saga,    but   as  far  as  the   title  was   concerned, 
it    never    changed. 

In  later  years,    that  became  somewhat  of   an  embarrassment — 
this  was  much  much  later,   when  I  was  administratively  responsible 
for   this   business.      State   auditors  would  look  at  the  titles  of 
these   old  projects  and  find   that   they  had   been  in  force    since   the 
early   days — early   twenties,    thirties,    and  forties — and  say,    "This 
is   evidence   that  you  never   change.      You're   still   working   on   the 
same   problems  as  you  were  twenty  or  thirty  years  ago.      We  have  to 
do   something  about   this;   we    can't  put   up  with  such  an  obsolete, 
in-the-rut   kind   of    activity."     Well   of   course,    if  you  just  look 
at   titles,     that  was   the    case. 

So   I   spent  a   good   deal    of   my   time  in  later  years  explaining 
to  interested  parties  who  were  not  inclined   to  want   to  support 
the  agricultural    research   program   in  the  first  place  that  we 
really  had  a   dynamic   system   that  wasn't   stuck  in  a  rut.      It  was 
changing  with  the  times.      But  the  evidence — summarized  evidence 
and  aggregate  evidence — was  not  very  supportive   of    that   point   of 
view,     so   it  was   difficult   to  get  that  point  across.       (That's 
looking  forward  a  little  bit,    because  that  leads   into   some   of    my 
administrative   frustrations   that   I  encountered  in  later  years. 
So  I  inadvertantly   contributed  to  some   of   my   administrative 
problems  in  later  years.      Faculty   were/are  generally 
unsympathetic  to  revising  projects  on  a   timely   basis,    because  it 
seems  to  them   to  be   an  unproductive  activity.      I  agreed  because 
it  is   primarily  an  administrative   need  and  exercise.) 

The  evolution  of   my   activities  as  a  plant  pathologist  was 
somewhat   gradual.      While   I  spent  most  of    the  early  years   setting 
out   field  plots  and  trying  to  address  the  solution  of    these 
problems  in  the  field,    it   gradually  became  apparent   to  me   that   I 
was  not  making  very   much  progress  in  field  experimentation  and 
that  we   needed   to   back  up  and  look  at  a  less    complex   situation. 
So   that  is  when  I  began  to  become  more  concerned  about   the 
dynamics  of  an  infection  in  more   controlled   situations,    in  the 
greenhouse   and  laboratory,     to   study    the  pathogens  involved.      And 
also  the   same  thing  for  the  viruses;   we   needed  to  isolate   them  in 
more  pure  form  without   so  many  complex  complications,    so  we  knew 
what  we  were   dealing  with, 

My    interests   gradually   turned  then  into   the  study   of 
epidemiology  and  population  dynamics  of   the  lima   bean  root  rot, 
where   the  pathogens  involved  were  primary   Rhizoctor.ia  solani, 
pythium  ultimum,   and  Fusarium  solani,    the  three  maj  or  fungi 
causing  foot  distress  in  quite  a  number  of   vegetables,    although 
the   bean   plant  was  a   good  host   to   study    their  actions   on. 


62 


Lage :  So  you  studied   them  in   the    controlled  lab   or   greenhouse? 

Kendrick:     We  began  to  turn  to  the  laboratory   and  the  greenhouse. 

Lage:  Was  that  happening  in  other  areas  of   the  experiment   station,    or 

just  your   project?     Was  this  kind  of    a   trend? 

Kendrick:      I  think  it  was  a   trend,    although   the   staff    of    the   experiment 

station,    even  those  working  with  citrus  and  avocadoes  and  lemons 
and  dates,   were  field- oriented.      The  experiment   station,    because 
it  didn't  have  any    teaching  obligations,    I   think  spent   more   time 
in  the  field  with  the  field   problems   than   perhaps  our   northern 
California  colleagues.      The  activities  of    the  experiment   station 
people  at  Berkeley  and  Davis,    at  least   to   the  extent   that    I 
followed  my    father  and  his   colleagues,    were  also  field-oriented. 
The   gradual    evolution,   which   I  will    get  into   a  little   bit  later, 
of  becoming  more  laboratory-   and  greenhouse-oriented,    was  really 
a   consequence  of    the   evolution  of  how  you  approached   the   solution 
to   the   problems. 


Establishment   of    the  Air  Pollution  Research  Laboratory 


Kendrick:     One  of    the  great  digressions  as  far  as  the  citrus  research  was 

concerned  was  the  onset  of   air  pollution   damage  to  vegetables  in 
southern  California.      John  Middleton  in  the  mid-forties  had  noted 
what  he  thought  was  air  pollution  damage,    probably   due  to  sulfur 
dioxide,    in  the  Long  Beach   area  with   its   concentration  of    oil 
extraction  activities,    refineries,    and  related  industrial 
activities.       I   guess   I   don't  know    particularly   what   the  host  was, 
but   celery  was   grown  in  that  area,    and  it    could  have   been   some 
celery  or  lettuce   on  which  he  noticed  what  he  felt  was  perhaps 
air   pollution   damage. 

We  had  another  flurry   in  the  late  forties,    in  1948-49,    of 
calls  into  El   Monte,    Puente,    and   the  Long  Beach  area  again,    and 
fields  that  seemed  to  be  blighted.      And  not  just  in  isolated 
areas  but  the  whole  field.     We  responded  to  that   plea  for  help  by 
looking  at  them,    and  finally  determined  that  there  was   something 
in  the  atmosphere   causing   this   problem. 

Lage:  Was  it  a   difficult  realization  to  make,    or  was  it   so   different 

from   other   types   of   blight — ? 

Kendrick:     Well,   what  made  it  appear  to  be  atmospheric  was  that  the  whole 
field  would  be  affected  uniformly.     The   nature   of   plant   disease 
is    such    that  it's  rare   to  get  all   the  plants  in  the  whole  field 
of   sixty,    or  twenty-five,    or  fifteen  acres   affected  similarly. 
You  find  pockets  of   disease,    because  of    the  nature  of    the 


63 


Kendrick:      distribution  of   the  organism,    even  with   airborne  fungal    or 

bacterial    blights.      You   don't   really    find  all   plants  in  the  field 
affected  to   the    same  extent.      There  are   pockets  where  it's  more 
devastating  than   others.       And  you  can  trace   that   to  the  origin, 
where  the   pathogen   got   started — either   seedborr.e   or  in  the  field 
or   it's   blown  in  from    one   section  to  another,    so   that   there's  a 
gradation  of    severity.      But  in  air   pollution   damage,    you   car.  look 
over   the  whole  field  and  all   plants  seem   to  be   affected 
similarly.      You  quickly    come   to   the  realization  that   it's 
something  airborne   and  uniform. 

Well,   we  were  looking  for  mildews  and  fungal   spore-borne 
diseases,    but  isolations  from   the   diseased  material    on  the   plant 
didn't  yield  anything  that   seemed   to  be   pathogenic.      We'd   get   the 
usual    contaminants,    but   nothing   that  was  very   pathogenic. 

So  without   too  much   scratching  of   our  heads,    we  suddenly 
realized  that  we  had  an  air  pollution   problem,    and   then  we   began 
to  look  at   the  weather  records   to   see  when  the  first  notices  had 
come  in  relation  to  whether   or  not   they  were  in  the   smog  attacks. 
And  at   that   time,    in  the   early    fifties  and  late  forties,    air 
pollution  was  beginning  to  become  a   problem  in   the  Los  Angeles, 
Altadena,    Pasadena,    El   Monte  region  of   southern  California. 

Lage:  There  were   already   records   of   pollutants  in  the  air? 

Kendrick:      Yes.       Our   department   had  a   position  authorized  to  assist  Dr. 

Donald  Bliss,   who  was  responsible  for   date   diseases — date   disease 
investigations — and  Armillaria  root  rot  of   woody   plants.      That 
position  was  authorized  to  aid  him   in  his  investigation,    and  Dr. 
Ellis  Darley   was  employed  to  occupy   that  position,    but  because   of 
the    severity   of    the   air  pollution   damage  we   prevailed   upon  Dr. 
Klotz    and  Dr.    Batchelor   to  allow    that  position  to  be   diverted  to 
work  on  the  air  pollution  problem,    because   the   problem   needed 
more  help  than  John  and  I  were  able   to  give  it.      They   allowed 
that    to  happen. 

So  Ellis  Darley   joined  John  and  me  in  our  air  pollution 
studies.      Around  that  time  we  realized  that  we  were   dealing  with 
a    photochemical    reaction  way   beyond  both  John's  and  my    training. 
We  were  interested  in  getting  some   controlled  environmental 
chamber   studies  to  reproduce   the  disease.      We  were  also  aware 
that   Professor   Fritz   Went,    a   plant   physiologist  at   CalTech,    had 
developed  what  he  called  a   phytotron.      That  was  at   that   time,    in 
the  late  forties,    the   ultimate  in   controlled  environmental 
chamber   studies.      Everything  inside  was   sterile.      The   only 
variations  were  the  varied  environments    created   to   study   plants 
and  plant   growth.      One   could  only  enter   the   chamber  by   changing 
clothes  and   dressing  in  a   sterilized  uniform,    putting  hats   on, 
walking  through   disinfectants.      It  was  quite  an  ordeal    to  get   in 
and  out. 


64 


Kendrick:      So.    we  early   collaborated  with  Went  to  set   up  some  experiments   in 
the  phytotron  at  CalTech.    but  we  needed  somebody   to  pay   attention 
to  them,    and   that's  where  we  asked   Ellis   Darley   to  join    us. 
Ellis   spent   some  time  in  Pasadena  and  traveled  back  and  forth  to 
Riverside. 

It  became  apparent  that  we  needed  to  trace  what  we  were 
dealing  with  and  we  were  aware  of   the  fact  that  a  member  of   the 
biochemistry    department   at  CalTech.    was  Dr.    A.    J.    Haagen-Smit. 

Lage:  He's  mentioned  in  one   of  our   other  interviews  as    chairman  of    the 

state   Air  Resources  Board   under  Governor   Reagan. 

Kendrick:      That's   correct,    he  was.      At  the   time — this  was  in  the  late 

forties,    '49 — he  had   come   to  CalTech   from    the  Hawaiian  Pineapple 
Institute,    where  he  had  been  working  on  the   chemistry    of   aromatic 
flavors.      He   seemed  ideal    to  seek  help  from   because  he  knew 
something  about  volatiles  and  their   chemical   reactions.      So  we 
established  a   relationship  with  Haggy,    as  we  called  him,    and 
engaged  his   interest  in  this   air   pollution   problem.      He's    the    one 
that  really   pushed  us  a  quantum   leap  ahead.      It  was   through   his 
knowledge  of  aromatic  aldehydes  and  highly    unstable   oxidar.t 
aldehydes,    and  their  origin,    that  we  realized  we  were  dealing 
with  a  photochemical  reaction  between  the  hydrocarbons  from 
gasoline  and  ozone  in  the  atmosphere,    which  produced  the 
ingredients   causing  the   damage   that  we  were   noting  in  the  fields. 

So,    John  and  Ellis  and  I   set  up  some  fumigation  chambers  ir. 
Riverside  and  began  trying  to  reproduce  some   of    the   damage  we 
were   seeing  in  the  fields.      We   spent  a   good  deal   of    time  the  next 
two  or  three  years  pursuing  that,    trying  to  establish  some  levels 
of   concentration  and  exposures  and   conditions  of   predisposition 
that  made   plants  susceptible,    and  trying  to   determine  what    plants 
were  not   susceptible   to  air  pollution  damage.      We  did  that  with 
the  vegetables;   we  were  not  engaged  with   citrus  and   tree    crop 
studies  at   that  time. 

That   ultimately   led  to  quite  an  established  area  of    research 
at  Riverside,    and  ultimately   to   the  establishment   of    the 
statewide  Air  Pollution  Research  Laboratory,    which  was  headed  and 
directed  by  John  Middleton.      I   determined  about   the   mid-fifties 
that   pursuing  air  pollution  damage  was  kind  of   a  dead-end  street 
for  me.      I  was  more  interested  in  the   pathology   of    plants  and 
realized  that   I  was   not  trained  well  enough  in  biochemistry   and 
the  physical   chemistry  required  to  study  and  solve  air  pollution 
damage.      I  also  was   not  interested  in  just   testing  the  reaction 
of   plants  to  air  pollution  damage  for   the  rest  of   my   career.      So 
I   said   to  John,     "You  take   the  air  pollution  business,    and   I'll 
get   back  into  vegetable   pathology,    and  we'll    both   proceed  happily 
beyond   that." 


65 


Lage:  That's  very  exciting  to   be   in  at   the   beginning   of    something. 

Was   this  a   new    field?      Was  this  the  first  time  that  it  had  been 
studied,    or   did  you  have  literature  to  fall   back  on? 

Kendrick:      This  was   a   new    cause   of   air  pollution  damage   to  plants.      The  main 
literature  we  had  to  fall   back  on  was  S02   damage   studies.      There 
was  a   center   of   air  pollution  research   in  Salt  Lake   City   and  in 
Provo,    where   Moyer  D.    Thomas  was   employed  by — I   think  it  was  U.S. 
Steel    Company.      U.S.     Steel   had  a   plant   there.      They   were  being 
sued  by   growers  for  plant   damage  associated  with   steel 
production.      They   established  their  own  research  laboratory    to 
sort  out  how  much  damage  they  were  responsible  for,   and  how   much 
was  other  kinds   of   plant   damage   for  which   they    didn't  have  any 
responsibility.      They  were   trying  to   partition  out    degrees   of 
responsibility,     so    they    could  sort   out   the  liability. 

You  have  to  realize  that   the   Fontana  Steel    Mill  was   in   close 
proximity    to  Riverside,    and  they   were  beginning  to  get  all  kinds 
of    claims  against   them.      They  were  not  a   clean  industry;   they 
were   emitting  pollutants,    pollutants  you  could  see.      There  is  a 
big  difference  between  smoke  and  the  kind  of   plant   damaging 
pollution  that   comes  out   of    a  number  of    sources. 

We  were  becoming  the  experts  in  plant   damage  due  to  air 
pollution.      I  was   not   terribly   comfortable  with  that  because  it 
was  still  a  big  guessing  game  as   to  what   degree   of   responsibility 
was   due   to  Fontana  and  what  might  be   due   to  what  was  blown  in 
from  Los  Angeles.      The  American  automotive  industries  were   not 
particularly   accepting  of    their  responsibility    for   the  plant 
damage  from   gasoline  and  its  incomplete   combustion  in  car 
engines.      The  Stauffer  Chemical    Company   was  quite  helpful    to  us. 
They   provided  free   of   charge   the   chambers   that   they  had    given   up. 
They    had  assembled  their  own  research   in  the  Long  Beach  area  when 
they  were  being  pursued  because  of   some   claims  about   sulfur 
dioxide    damage   to  plants,    and  they   made   some  studies  to  determine 
what  it  was   they    could  reasonably   accept  responsibility   for.      I 
don't  know    the   outcome  of    the   suit,    but   it  was  a   subject   of 
litigation. 

But   the  chambers   that   they   gave   us,    and  the   set-up  to  expand 
them  into  a   useful  laboratory  experience,    really  was  quite   a 
development  as   far  as  Riverside  was   concerned.      On  the  basis  of 
our  studies,   we   determined  that  if  we  were   going  to   do   greenhouse 
studies  for  viruses  or   other  kinds   of   plant   studies,    we   could 
only   do  it   if  we  filtered   the  air   through  activated   carbon  filters. 
This  eliminated  the  airborne   plant   damaging  toxicant.      That  also 
became  a  requirement  for  the   phytotron  in   Pasadena  because   plants 
were  being  damaged  inside   the  phytotron  by   some  mysterious 
visitor,    in   spite   of   requiring  people  entering  the   phytotron  to 
go   through   procedures  to  prevent   contamination  of   the  plants 
inside.      Nevertheless   something  was  escaping  and   damaging  plants. 


66 


Kendrick:      At  the  time  we  were   doing  those   studies,    Professor    [Albert] 

Ullrich,    then  from    the   department   of    soils  here  on  the  Berkeley 
campus,   was  on  a   sabbatical  leave  to   study   environmental 
influences  on  the  growth  of   sugar  beets  and  sugar  production.      He 
has  always  indicated  that  we  kind  of   came   to  his   rescue   by 
studying  air  pollution  in  that  area  and   determining  that  they   had 
to  filter   the  air   through   the   deactivated   carbon  filters,    in 
order   to  provide   an  atmosphere   that   did  not   contain  the  oxidant 
that  would  damage   plant   growth. 

So  it  was  kind  of   exciting  to  be   in  the  forefront  with  these 
air  pollution  studies,    but   I  was  willing  and  happy   to  turn  it 
over   to   the  chemistry    investigations.      That  was  also  my    first 
association  with  Jim   Pitts,   who  came  to  Riverside  when  the 
college  was  established.      He  was  a  professor  of   chemistry  at  the 
time,    and  his  area  of  expertise  was  in   physical    chemistry   and  in 
photochemistry.      It  was   natural    that  he  would  be  interested  in 
the   photochemistry   of   reactive  free   radicals   in   the  atmosphere. 


Sabbatical   Year  at  Cambridge   and  Rothamsted 


Kendrick:     That  pretty   well  covers  my   research.      I  renewed  my   interest  in 

soil   fungi  and  pepper  viruses  which  led  to  a   sabbatical    in  1961- 
62   in  Cambridge  University,    where  I  sought  to  spend  some  time 
getting  refreshed  in  the   dynamics   of   root   pathogens.      One   of    the 
pioneers  of    root  disease   studies  was  located  at  Cambridge 
University.      He  had  published  a  book  or  two  on  the  topic,    and   I 
sought   to  associate  myself  with  him   for  a  year.      His  name  was  Er. 
Dennis  Garrett. 

So  I  applied  for  a  fellowship  from   the  National    Science 
Foundation  and  was  fortunate  enough   to  be    granted  a   senior 
postdoctoral    fellowship  for   the  year.      I  had  also   determined  that 
I  would  like  to  spend  some   of    the  year  at   the  Rothamsted 
Agricultural   Experiment   Station  in  Harpenden  working  with  Dr. 
Eric  Buxton. 

Rothamsted  is   in  about   thirty    minutes  from  London.      It  is 
quite  a  famous  agricultural  experiment   station   going  back   several 
hundreds  of  years.      It  is  really   the  agricultural   experiment 
station   in  England. 

Lage :  Somehow    I   think  of    them   as  being  uniquely  American. 

Kendrick:     No,    agricultural  experiment   stations  as  such  are  German.      The 
concept   that  we  developed  in  this  country   came  from   the  German 
institutes  of  agriculture.      They  laid  out   these  experiment 
stations.      England  augmented  and  exploited  the   idea,    but   some   of 


67 


Kendrick:      the  early  work  was   done  in  soil   chemistry  —  chemistry   of 

fertilizers.      The  Rothamsted  Experiment  Station  has  a  famous 
field  experiment  in  which  they  have  had  the   same  regime   of 
fertilizers   and   cropping  practices  for  over   two  hundred  years. 
It   provides   a  valuable   data  base  for  what  will  happen,    and  it's 
produced   a   lot  of    information. 


The   time  at  Cambridge   proved  to  be   somewhat  of   a 
disappointing  experience  as  far  as   my   research   plans  were 
concerned,    because  when  I  found  what  facilities  were  available  to 
study   population  dynamics   of  Rhisoctonia  rising  and  falling  under 
various   kinds  of    regimes,     I   found  that   they   didn't  have   the 
facilities  to  study   in  any   kind   of   a   statistical  way    the   problem 
that   I   had  outlined.      I   made   these   arrangements  by    letter   to 
begin  with,    and  was  somewhat  misled  by  Garrett.      Although  he  was 
a  marvelous   person  to  discuss   things  with,    I  found  that  his 
experiments  were   pretty  well   confined  to  his  laboratory   bench 
with   one   or   two  plants  from  which  he'd  make  all  his  observations 
and   draw  quite  inclusive    conclusions.      The    same   characteristic 
existed  with  his   greenhouse  experiments.      I  was  accustomed  to 
setting  up  three   to  four  hundred   petri   dish   plates  and  make 
readings   to  get   some  kind  of   comfortable  statistical   feeling  of 
occurrences  or  nonoccurrences  of   the   organisms   that    I  was 
studying.       I   found  that  if   I   used  400   petri   dishes  in  this 
laboratory,     I'd  use   up   the  whole  week's   supply   for    the   entire 
department.      [laughter] 

So  I  had  to  readjust  my   expectations  relative   to  the  kind  of 
study  I   could  make,    and  I  found  that  what   I   gained  most  from    that 
experience   of   nine  months  was  an  exposure  to  the  kind  of 
analytical   thought  process   of   the   Cambridge   scientist  and   the 
companionship  of    the  research   students  who  were  a  part  of   that 
botany   department.      Plant   pathology  was  not  a   department  at 
Cambridge;    it  was   part  of   the  botany   department.      Our  family 
formed  a  very   close  personal   relationship  with   three  advanced 
graduate   students   during  that  period.       I   really   cherish   those 
relationships,    one   of  which  we   carry   on   pretty    closely   even 
today  —  the  Robert  Witbread  family.      They   are  in  Wales.      He  is   a 
member   of    the  University   of  Wales,   located  at  Bangor. 

There  were  three  of    these  young  men  (Bob  Witbread,    David 
Punter  and  Roger  Waistie),   who  were  not  married  at   the   time,    and 
they    ultimately  became  more  than  j  ust  acquaintances  because   they 
looked   after   us.      Through   them  we  experienced   university  life  in 
Cambridge   in  all   its  broad  aspects,    and  they   experienced  American 
family  life  in  our  home.      (It  was  at  least  what  we    called  home, 
and  what  the  English  call  a  semi-detached  duplex,    which  was  two 
dwellings  with  a   common  wall.      That's  why   it  was   semi-detached. 
Detached  on  three   sides,    but  with   a  common  wall    in  the   center.) 


68 


Kendrick:      They  would  come  to  our  home   periodically   to  visit,    to  have  meals, 
and  we'd  travel    some   together.      That  was  an  unheard  of 
opportunity  for  English  students   because  with   their   own  research 
advisors  at  Cambridge,    the  relationship  between  the  advisor  and 
his  student  was  very  formal  and  somewhat   distant.      We,    being  the 
visiting  Americans,   were  much  more  informal,    and  there  was  less 
of  a  gulf   between  teacher  and   student. 

David  Punter  is   now    in  Canada  at   the  University   of   Toronto, 
and  Roger  Waistie  is  back  in  England  at  an  experiment   station 
near  Scotland  after  a  number  of  years  at  a   research  station  ir. 
Indonesia.      It  may  actually   be  in  Scotland. 

This  was  quite  an  impressionable  year.      It  gave  me  renewed 
confidence  and  experience  in   dealing  with   soil-borne  fungal 
pathogens,    and  I   came  home  from   that  experience  with  the   feeling 
that   I  was  really   going  to   get  into   the   population   dynamics   of 
root-rotting  organisms  that  were  borne   in  the  soil.      This  was 
kind  of   an  expanding  field  at   the   time.      I   also  had  a   similar 
experience   of   stimulation  in  Harpenden  at  the  Rothamsted 
Experiment  Station.      The   thing   I  was  appreciative   of   ir.   that 
opportunity   was  that  it  placed  me  in  the  company   of   stimulating 
minds.      We   didn't   always   talk   shop,    and   the   topics   ranged  from 
foreign   policy   to  politics   and  sports.      At   Cambridge,    through 
another   contact   I  had  from   Riverside  in   the   chemistry   departnent, 
I  was  introduced  to  a   physical   chemist   (Howard  Purnell)   who  was  a 
fellow   at  Trinity  Hall,    Cambridge.     He  arranged  to  have  me 
accepted  as  a  visiting  fellow    at  Trinity   Hall,    which  gave  me  the 
opportunity  to  experience  some  Cambridge   college  life  such  as 
dining  at  the  high   table  with  the  fellows,    and  having 
conversation  and  sherry  or  port  in  the   commons  room  with   the 
fellows  after  dinner.      I   could  easily   understand  how    that 
stratified  life   of   Cambridge  and  Oxford   perpetuates  itself, 
because   it   is  a  very   pampered  life  for  the  faculty   who  are  "in," 
but   not  necessarily   so  for   those  who  are    students. 

A  lasting  experience   for  me  was  that  I  was  often  challenged 
to  explain  American  foreign  policy   or  American  attitudes.      I  was 
the  only   American  who  was  a  fellow   at  this   small   college   at   that 
time.      Trinity  Hall  was   primarily   oriented  towards   the  field   of 
law.      The  master   of   the  college  had  had  something  to  do  with 
writing  the   constitution  of   several    of    the  former   colonies   of 
England.      So  the  American  really  was  fair  game  for  a  lot  of 
challenges — not  necessarily   criticism,    and   I  at  least  was  asked 
to  explain  and  justify    the  stance   of    the  United  States 
government.      I  felt  at   times  like   I  was   defending  something   I 
didn't   have   my    heart   into. 

Lage :  Sounds  like   an  unfair  advantage,    with  all   these   people  schooled 

in  the  1  aw. 


69 


Kendrick:      That's   true,    but  as   I  reflected   back  on  those  encounters,    it  was 
a   great  experience,    because   I'm  not  really   comfortable  just   being 
a   passive  observer   of   current   events,    and   I'm  not    shy   about 
debating  a   point  wtih  somebody,    particularly   if   I've  got  the 
knowledge  and  a   basis   to  support   the  argument. 

Then,    when  I  went  to  Harpenden.    to  Rothamsted,    I  was  thrown 
in  amongst  another   group  of    challenging  people.     We   used  to  have 
lunch   together,    brown-bagging  it,    either  at  a  local   pub  in 
Harpenden  or   else  in  the  laboratory.      My   experience   there 
occurred   during  the  period  of    the  Bay   of   Pigs.      The  English  were 
very    critical    of   the  United  States  action  in  the  Bay    of    Pigs, 
particularly   in  remembering  how    their  attempt  at  controlling  the 
Suez    Canal   early  on  was    condemned  by   the  United  States,    as  an  act 
of    unf  or  give  able  ness.      They   wondered  how   come  we   (the  United 
States)   had  a   double   standard.      Well,    defending  the  Bay   of   Pigs 
was   not  very   easy   to  do,    particularly   since    I   didn't  know 
anything   about   it. 

Lage:  I've  heard  other   people   say    that   they   were  put   into   that 

defensive  position,   whereas  if  you  were  here,    you  might   be 
leading   the   criticism. 

Kendrick:      That's  quite   correct.      But   it   placed  me  in  a   position  of    the 

lawyer  who  has  to   defend  someone  because  they   come  to  you  and  you 
know    they're   guilty   but  you've   got   to  see   that   their  rights  are 
protected,    and  not    condemned   through    prejudice. 

But  we  hit   it  off  quite  well.      When  I  finished  my   leave 
there,    my   colleagues  at  Rothamsted  gave  me  a  hand-written 
pictorial    scroll   that  was   described  as  an  honorary   degree  in 
debating.       [laughter]      I've   got  it  hanging  in   the   other   room.       I 
thought  it  was  a  nice   tribute.      They    respected  me  for   defending 
things  that  were  almost  indefensible  and  admired   the  fact   that   I 
could  hold  my   own — they   were  all  graduates  of   Cambridge   or 
Oxford,    with  no  lack   of   ability   to  engage  in  that   kind   of    debate. 

Lage:  Where   did  all   this   social   life  leave  your  wife,    or  did  she  have  a 

stock  in  all    this?      Sounds  very  male. 

Kendrick:      You're  quite  right;    it  was  very    male.      England  then  was  very 

male.      Our  children  were  nine  and  eleven,    and  we  were    determined 
that  we  would  have   them   experience   the  English  school   system. 
Janet  was   the   eleven-year-old,    and  Douglas  was   the   nine-year-old. 
Evelyn  spent  most   of   her   time   taking  care  of   shopping,    and  being 
sure   that    she  was   there  when  the   children  needed  her.      The   period 
when  I  was  in  Rothamsted,    which  was  the  last  three  months  of   our 
stay   in  England,   we   did  not  want  to   change   schools  for   that   time. 
So  we  left  her   in   Cambridge   and  I   took  our  little  right-hand   drive 
Opel   (and   a  right-hand   driving   country   is   a    thrill    in  itself).       I 
would   go   down  on  a  Monday   morning  and  come  back  on  a  Friday 


70 


Kendrick:      afternoon.      And  while  at  Rothamsted,    I   stayed  in  what   they    called 
the  Manor  House.      Rothamsted  really   was  an  expansion  of   an  old 
estate,    a  major  estate.      The   Manor  House  was   the   original    owner's 
home,    and  it  was  quite   a  large  home.      It  had  been  modified  to 
take  care  of  visitors  who  were  there  for   periods  of    time.      I  was 
fortunate  enough   to  get  a   room    for   the  three  months  that  I  was  at 
Rothamsted. 

That  also   provided  another   opportunity    to  become  acquainted 
with  visiting  West  Indians,    Australians  and  Jamaicans.      Rothamsted 
was  a  magnet  for  visitors  from  all  over  the  world  who  would  come 
through  and  want  to  see  the  renowned  staff   of    the  experiment   sta 
tion,    as  well   as  some  of    the  famous  plots.      It  has  an  illustrious — 
good  history   of   early  work  in  the  agricultural   research  field. 

One  of   the  things   I  remember  not  too  fondly  are  the  meals 
that  we  had  at  Rothamsted.      Evelyn  will   remind  me   of    this   every 
time  we  have  brussels   sprouts.      I  was  there  during  the  winter 
period,    during  the  season  when  brussels  sprouts   seemed  to  be 
forever  available,    and  they   prepared  brussels   sprouts  in  the 
Manor  House  kitchen  by  boiling  them  for  what   seemed  to  be  most   of 
the  day,   before  serving  them   at   the  evening  meal.      They    were 
absolutely   awful.      It  was   the   principal  vegetable.      Brussels 
sprouts  and  boiled  potatoes.      It  was  not  a  menu  that  I  remember 
with  any   degree  of   fondness.     On  the  other  hand,    the  meals  at 
Trinity   Hall   were  quite  good. 

These   graduate   students   I   referred  to  earlier   saw    to  it  that 
we  went  to  the   college  events,    the   parties,    which  had  a  lot  of 
tradition  associated  with   them.      The   school   terms   I  never  could 
get   sorted  out  exactly   correctly.      At   the   start   of   my  leave,   we 
arrived  in  March  and  discovered  that  the  term  was  ending  and 
there  was  going  to  be  about  a   three-week  recess,    when  everybody 
disappeared.      That   period  was   going  to  be  a  waste  of   time,    so  we 
quickly   changed  our   plans  and  went   touring  on   the    continent   for 
three  weeks.      We   did  France   and  Italy   and  Austria.      The  students 
advised  us  of  some  places  to  visit,    which  we  appreciated.      We 
really    felt  quite  fortunate — we'd  pop  in  and  out  of   places  and 
did  our   own  tour,    in  our  little  Opel  with   the  four   of    us.      We  had 
quite  an  enjoyable  three  weeks  and  saw    a  lot  of  places  that  are 
now   commonplace   stops  on  most   organized   tours. 

Later  in  the  year  in  October  we  took  another  three-week 
sojourn  onto   the    continent,   and  we   did   the   northern  half    of 
western  Europe.      We  visited   Sweden,    Denmark,    northern  Germany, 
and  Holland  at   that    period.      And   that  was  a   delightful    time   of 
the  year,    too.      In  both  instances,    we  were  able  to  travel   with 
not   too  much   congestion  from   other   people,    so  we   didn't   really 
plan  a  lot  ahead  for  our  accomodations,    we  just  stopped  when  we 
were  ready  to  stop,    although  we  did  do   some   degree   of   planning  so 
we   wouldn't   be    stranded. 


71 


Kendrick:      That    gave   us  a   good  appreciation  for   that   part   of  Europe  and 

flavored  the  whole  year.      We   saw    a  lot  of    cathedrals,    and  during 
the  period  that  we  were  in  England  we   traveled  fairly   extensively 
on  weekends,    to  cover   that  country.      We  got  into  Wales  and  to 
Scotland  and  saw   cathedrals  and  manor  houses  and  were  well 
exposed  to   the  magnificent  art.      We   didn't  pass   up  many    art 
galleries.      I   think  we   gained  an  appreciation   of    the   exquisite 
nature   of    the  original    paintings.      Both  Evelyn  and  I   had  had  the 
usual   exposure   to  art  history   in   grade   school   by  looking  at   the 
pictures  in  books.      But   there  is   nothing  that  will   impress  you  as 
much  as   seeing  an  original.      I   think   that  really   kind   of   turned 
us  on  in  that  area. 

The  kids  were  a  little  impatient  with  us;   they   were  zipping 
in  and  out  of   the  Louvre  when  we  were   there.      Their   primary   stop 
was  a   souvenir  stand.       [laughs]      I   could  hardly  drag  them   away 
from   a   souvenir   stand  in  Pisa.      I  wanted  to   go   up   the  Leaning 
Tower,    and  they   wanted  to  buy    something. 

Lage:  Typical,    that  hasn't    changed. 

Kendrick:      No.      But   that   sabbatical   was   really   a  mind-clearer.      I   had  gotten 
so  involved  with  campus   committees  and  one  thing  and  another   that 
I  needed  a   separation  from    all  of    that  business.      I  really   came 
back  all    charged  up  to  become  a   good  plant   pathologist,   and 
quickly    got   diverted.       But   we'll   get   into   that. 

That    sabbatical,    it  turns  out,    and  subsequently   the  work 
engaged  in  after  returning  was  about   the  end  of   my   research 
career.      In  1963,    I   became    chairman  of    the    department.      (We'll 
back  up  a  bit,   and  get  into  that  a  little  bit  later.)      As 
chairman  of   the   department — it  was  a  fairly  large   department  and 
it  was   undergoing  expansion  and  growth — I  found  an  increasing 
demand  on  my   time  to  engage  in  administrative  matters  and  campus 
affairs.      While   I  attempted  to  carry   on  research  programs  with 
research  assistants,    I  really  knew    that   I  was  fighting  a  losing 
game.      Ultimately,    I  just   gave  in  and  let   the  research   slide. 
But  it  was  not   planned   that  way. 

I  wanted  to  comment  on  one  of   the  major  research  efforts 
that   I  engaged  in   prior   to   going  on   the    sabbatical   leave.      It  was 
done   in  the   Imperial  Valley   where  I  was  pursuing  the  problem   of 
cantaloupe   crown  blight.      Working  rather   closely  with  a  biochemist, 
a   colleague   of   mine    (Randy   Wedding),    put   us   into   the  field  a   good 
deal   of   time.      We  had  quite  extensive  field  plots,    trying  to 
uncover   the  fate   of    root   development  and  root   destruction  under  a 
variety   of   different  treatments — water  regimes,   varietal   differ 
ences.      That  was   not  a  very    fruitful    piece   of    research.      We  accumu 
lated  a  lot  of   data,    but  were   never  able   to   come   to  any  real 
conclusion  as  to  what  the  cause  was,    and  ultimately  we  decided  it 
was  another  one   of    those    complexes   that  we   needed   to   unravel. 


72 


Promoting  Riverside   Faculty  Unity  and   Camaraderie 


Kendrick:      During  my  early  years  at  Riverside,    the   department   of    plant 
pathology   was   physically  dispersed  among  four  different 
buildings.      This  made  it   difficult   to  operate  as  a   department 
because   there  wasn't  enough    in  common  to  bring  us   together.      I 
can't  remember   ever  having  a   staff   meeting,    or  any   kind   of   event 
that  was  departmental-oriented,   except  when  we  would  gather  at 
the  KLotzes'   house   once  in   a  while   for   socials   and   conversation. 
Dr.    and  Mrs.   KLotz   were  good  about   that;    they  kept  that  part  of 
the  operation   going  pretty  well.      But  in  a  professional    sense, 
there  was   nothing  that  brought  it   together. 

It  was  not   until  1954,    when  Webber  Hall  was  built  and  we 
were  able  to  bring  the  department   under  one  roof   in  one  central 
location,    that  we  began  to  feel   a  little  bit  more  like  a   unit 
with   a  common  purpose,    and  not  a   dispersed   group  of    individuals. 
The  first  place   I  was  housed  was   in  the   soil   science    department 
in  Riverside,    across   the  hall    from   Dan  Aldrich.      That  began 
another  association  which  had  a   decided  influence  on  my  outlook 
and  activities. 

That  was  not  my   first  association  with  Dan,    because  we  were 
in  Professor  Benjamin  Dugger's   plant   physiology    course   at    the 
University   of   Wisconsin,    as   I   have  indicated.      But   Dan  had 
finished  earlier  and  had  come  out  to  join  the  Riverside   Citrus 
Experiment   Station  in  about   1944.      Let  me  interject  here   that, 
although  the   department   did  not  have  any   kind  of   common  focus, 
the   Citrus  Experiment   Station  did.      It  had  a  major  event  which   as 
I  look  back  on  it  appeared  to  be   created  by   a   stroke    of    genius. 
It   brought   this  large   family   together  and  provided  an  opportunity 
to  at  least  develop  for  those   of   us  who  were  really  a   part   of 
that  early  staff,    some  esprit  de   corps  in  terms  of  being  a  part 
of   the  Citrus  Experiment  Station,    and  allowed   us   to  overcome   the 
feeling  of    isolation  from    the  university   which   the  physical 
location    promoted. 

And  that  focus  was  a   regular  meeting  of  what  was   called  the 
Synapsis   Club.      The   origin  of    that   term   is    genetic  and  means 
"coming  together."     It    describes  one   of    the  phases  of    cell 
division  and  cell  multiplication,   and  represents  what  happens  in 
the  nucleus  with  the  chromosomes,    they   come  together  before  they 
are   split  apart.      I    don't   know   who  to   give   credit  for   that   naire 
because   by   1947    it   seemed  to  be   already   a  well-established 
meeting  of  members  of   the   staff  and  outsiders  who  wanted   to   come. 
There  was  always  a  single  speaker,   who  would  describe   some  work 
activity    that  he   or   she  was    doing.      It  was   pretty   well   attended, 
and  you  were   sort  of    expected  to   go    to  a   Synapsis   Club  meeting. 
At  least  if  you  were  absent,   your  absence  was  noted  and  you  were 
asked,    "Well,    how    come  you  weren't  at   the  Synapsis   Club?" 


73 


Lage:  And  how   often   did   this   take   place? 

Sendrick:      I   think  it  was  once   a  month.      I   don't   think  it  was  any    more  often 
than   that.      It   certainly  was  not  once   a  week.      But   that   event  was 
really   I   think  rather   important   to   the  unification  of   the 
Experiment  Station  and  provided  at  least  a  means   of    getting 
acquainted  with  other  than  your  immediate  colleagues.      There  was 
a   certain  amount   of   socializing   through   the   Campus   CLub.      The 
Campus   Club  was  really   run  by   the   spouses. 


Lage:  When  you  mention  the  Campus   CLub,    are  you  talking  about  the 

period  after  the   College   of  Letters  and  Science  was  established? 

Kendrick:      No.      The   campus   club  was   there  before.      I   don't  know   when  it 

first   started,    but  it  was  in  existence  when  we  arrived.      It  was 
an  activity    that   the  wives  encouraged,    and  they   were  instrumental 
in  developing  Christmas   parties  and  summer   picnics. 

I  wanted  to  talk  about  my   association  with  Dan  Aldrich,    who 
was  located  right  across  the  hallway  from   the  laboratory  which   I 
shared  with  Henry    Schneider,    also  a  plant  pathologist  —  the  twc  of 
us  were  in  the   soils   department   building.      The  fact   that   both  Dan 
and  I   had  been  at  Wisconsin  briefly   together  led  us  naturally 
into  an  early  association,    but  he  was  hard   to  miss  anyway  — 
friendly,    vigorous,    and  active,    just  a   natural   leader,    as  his 
subsequent    career  at   the  University    demonstrated.*     We  found 
commonality    in  our  families  and  social   life.      Evelyn  and  I   did 
not  have  any   children  at   the   time;    the  Aldrichs  were  just 
starting  their  family;   the  Middletons  had  part  of    their  family. 
The  Zentmyers,    I  believe,    had  their  family  started  at   the   time  we 
first  met   them. 

At  any    rate,    in  a   social    sense   the  Middletons,    Zentmyers, 
Aldriches,    and  Kendricks  became  a   social   group  who  would   get 
together  at  Thanksgiving  and  at  other   times  of    the  year.      So 
aside  from   being  professional   colleagues,    our  families  enjoyed 
each    other   and  participated   together  in  social    events. 

The  expansion  of    the   Citrus  Experiment   Station  brought   to 
the  staff  younger   people  who  felt   that  they   needed  more  activity 
than  just  horseshoes   at   noontime. 

Lage:  Al  Boyce   talks   about   the  horseshoe   game. 


*  Aldrich  went   on  to  become  chairman  of   the  Department  of   Soils 
and   Plant  Nutrition,    Davis  and  Berkeley;    University   Dean  of 
Agriculture;    Chancellor   of    the  University   of    California,     Irvine; 
and  Acting  Chancellor   of    the  Riverside  and  Santa  Barbara    campuses. 


74 


Kendrick:      Yes.       It   became  quite  an  ongoing  game,     I'll    tell  you.       I 

participated  myself  a  few    times,    but   I  was  never  in  it  with   those 
old   guys  who  could  toss  ringers   all    the    time.      But  we    determined 
that  we  really   needed  a   faculty   club.      And  Dan  Aldrich  was  a 
principal   mover.      Nothing  stood  in  his  way   of    contacting  anybody. 
If   he  needed  to   call   Dr.   Wellman  or  Dean  Hutchison  or  Bob 
Underbill   or  whomever,    it  was  just  a   phone   call   as  far  as  he  was 
concerned.      L.    C.    Cochran — who  was  with   the  USDA,    and  another 
plant   pathologist  at  Riverside  joined  in  helping   this   movement. 
As  a   graduate   student,    Cochran  was  acquainted  with  my    father  at 
Purdue.      It's  a  small  world  when  you  are    dealing  with   people  more 
or   less  in  the   same   profession.      L.    C.,    as  we  referred  to  him, 
was  placed  by   the  USDA  in  the  Department   of   Plant   Pathology   at 
Riverside   to  pay   attention  to  stone-fruit   trees  and  their 
diseases.      Ultimately,   he   spent  a   good   deal    of   his   time  with 
viruses   of    stone   fruits. 

But  L.    C.    had  also   determined  that  we  needed  the  physical 
presence   of  a  faculty  club.      So  L.   C.,   Dan  and  I,   and  the 
others — George  Zentmyer,    John  Middleton — conceived  of   developing 
a  faculty   clubhouse.      To  obtain  the   capital   for  its   development 
we  sold  bonds  to  ourselves  and  the  CES  staff.      We  located  a 
building  at  Camp  Haan  which  was   available  as  an  army   surplus 
building.       It   had  been  a   nurses'    recreation  building,    with   the 
usual   single-story  barracks-type  architecture.      Camp  Haan  was 
located  across  the  highway    from   March  Air  Force  Base,    about  five 
miles  from   the   Citrus  Experiment  Station.      We   determined 
that  if  we   could  get   that  building  moved  onto  some  spot  on  the 
Riverside  campus  property,    that  we  would  have  a   physical 
structure,    which  we  could  put  together  and  convert  into  a 
clubhouse.      But  we  needed  permission  from    the  Regents   to   do   that 
sort  of   thing.     That's  how   Aldrich  became  a  prime  mover  in 
contacting  the  secretary  of   the  Board   of   Regents,    who  was  Bob 
Underbill   at   the   time,    and   getting  support  from    the  local 
administration   plus   Dean  Hutchison,   who  was   in  Berkeley.      Dan 
carried   that   out  with   tenacity    and  effectiveness. 

When  the  administration  discovered  that  we  were  really 
serious   about   doing  this   sort  of    thing  and  had  raised  the  coney 
to   buy    the   building,     they   said — I   don't   know   who   "they"  were, 
really — but   they    said  they   would  allow   us  to  develop  that 
building  if   there  would  be  an  auditorium   in  it,    because   the   CES 
needed  some  expanded  meeting  space.      The  smaller  auditorium   in 
the  main   Citrus  Experiment  Station  building  where  we  were  holding 
the  Synapsis   Club  meetings  was  needed  for  office   space 
expansion — so  the  administration  said  that  if  we  would  allow    them 
to  have   some  meeting  space   in  the  reconstructed  building,    they 
would  help  us  move  and  relocate  it  in  a  more    convenient   place 
than  originally   planned.      We   saw    a  bargain  in  the  making,    and  we 
accepted    the   agreement. 


75 


Kendrick:      So  the  present  location  of  what  is  now    called   the  University    dub 
is  located   centrally   on  the   campus  just   north  of   the  soils 
building.      Well,    we  arranged  to  have  it  moved  by   a  moving 
company;    it  had  to  come  in  in  five  different   sections,    moved  down 
the  highway.      The  University   agreed   to   pay   for   the    construction 
of    the  new    foundation,    which  was  performed  professionally.      After 
the   sections  were  lowered  onto  the  new   foundation,    the   staff    of 
the   experiment    station  proceeded  then  to  put   it  back  together. 
We'd  have  work  parties  to   do   that  in  our   spare   time.      We  had   some 
technical   help  on  how    to  connect   things  and  how   to  get  the  wiring 
done  right  by   the  local  maintenance  man,    Henry   Meyer,   whom  Boyce 
referred  to  in  his   book.      He  was   really   the  prime  professional 
advisor  on   this   project.     But   all    the  manual   labor,    the  hammering 
and  the   sawing  and  the  like,    were  provided  by   the  staff  on  work 
parties  primarily  on  weekends  and  after  working  hours.      We   put  it 
back   together   again. 

We   determined  that  we  needed  a  fireplace,    so  we  bought  a 
large  iron  heatilator  and  surrounded  it  with   a  lot   of    concrete 
and   granite  from    the  western  part  of   Riverside    County.      The 
heatilator   provided  the    correct   drafting  which   a  fireplace   should 
have.      This  fireplace   is  a  monument   to  perpetuity   because  we  put 
so  much  granite  and  cement  into  it   that   I  expect  it  will   be   there 
almost    forever. 

Lage:  They'll   never  move  it  again. 

Kendrick:     Because  Aldrich  was   close   by — he  lived  just  across  the  highway 
from  the  experiment  station  and   I  was  without  family — we  found 
that   the   two  of   us  from   time  to  time  would  be   the  only  ones  out 
there   during  a  Saturday  work  schedule.      We've   been  identified   as 
the  ultimate  architects,    or  workhorses,    who  put  that  fireplace 
together. 

One   Saturday,    we  were   trying  to  lay  brick  for  the  chimney   on 
the  roof,    and  we  were  having  difficulty  lining  it   up  in  a 
perpendicular  way.      The   chimney   began  to  lean  a  little  bit. 

Lage:  [laughing]    The  leaning  tower   of   Pisa. 

Kendrick:      And  the  more  we   tried  to   straighten  it   out,    the  more  it  leaned. 
We  tried  to  adjust  for  the  amount  of  mortar  we  were   putting  in 
between  the  bricks.      And  finally,    it  was   so  frustrating  that  we 
stopped  and  Dan   said,    "Look,    we're   getting  nowhere.       I  have   a 
friend  who's  a  bricklayer.      Why   don't  we  ask  him   to  finish   this 
off?"     I  said,   "That's  the  best  idea  I've  heard  yet,    Dan.      Let's 
do    that.      Let's    stop   this   nonsense   because   if   we're   not   careful, 
it  will  just   crumble   on   us." 


76 


Kendrick:      So  that  was  what  happened,    and  to  this  day  you  can  see  where  we 

left  off   and  a   professional    took  off,    because   the  chimney    goes   up 
at  an  angle  and   then  it  all    of   a   sudden  straightens  out.      It  was 
finished  off    in  a  great  way. 

Another   thing  we  did  for  which   I  have  a  lot  of   fond  memories 
is  that  we  formed  a  vocal  quartet.     Our  social   events  in  the 
experiment   station  were  self-motivated,    and  entertainment  was 
provided   by  our   own   participation.      The    chairman  of    the   soils 
department  was  Homer  Chapman,    who  put  himself  through  school  with 
a  little   dance  band  for  which  he  was   the   piano   player,    playing  by 
ear.      He   could  play    almost  anything  that  somebody   would  hum   to 
him,    or  for  which  he  had  some  kind  of  a  notion  of  what   the  melody 
was.      He  put   all  kinds  of    chords   to  the  melody — he  was  a 
marvelous   piano   player.      He's   still   living.      So  he  was   our 
accompanist. 

Another   colleague,    a  man  in  plant   pathology,    Merrill 
Wallace,   had   the   talent   of   rhyming  almost  any   subject.      (Merrill 
was   our    principal   lyricist   of    our   original    songs.)      So  many   of 
our   songs  were   parodies   of   known  events  and   people.      This  quartet 
kind  of   got   thrown  together  with  no  planning — it  just   sort  of 
happened.      It   consisted  of   Aldrich,    Zentmyer,   Bob  Harding,    now 
deceased  and  a   colleague    of    Dan  Aldrich's  in  soils — and  me. 
Zentmyer  was  a  quite   capable  baritone,    could  harmonize  easily;    I 
sang  second  tenor  and  had   choral    experience   and  knew    a  little  bit 
about  harmonizing  around  a  tune;   Aldrich  was  not  very   musically 
inclined  but  he   could   carry   a  melody    so  we   said,    "Dan,    you  sing 
the  melody.      Don't  worry   about   us,    we'll   harmonize   around  you;" 
and  Bob  Harding  had  a   good  bass  voice,    knew   quite   a  bit  about 
harmony,   and   could  hold  his   own.      So   because   the   three   of    us   knew 
a  little  bit  about  and  could  read  music,    and  had  choral 
experience,    we  just  let  Dan  sort  of   free-wheel   it. 

Lage:  He  sounds  like  he  was  good  at  that. 

Kendrick:     He  was  fairly  adept  at  it.     And  surprisingly,   we  sounded  pretty 
good,    especially   if  we   could  get  Homer  Chapman  playing  loudly  on 
the  piano  and  covering  up  mistakes.      We   also  made   up  for  musical 
deficiencies  by   appearing  in  costume,    so  we  would — depending  on 
the  subject  matter — get   up  in  some  outlandish   costumes,    and 
divert  people's   attention  from    the  choral   niceties  by   the  words, 
which  were  usually  appropriately   composed  by  Merrill.      Then  we 
began  to  branch  out.     We  appeared  to  be  having  so  much  fun 
singing  that  we  were  asked  to  appear  at   Christmas  affairs,    or 
lead  the  Cal    fight  song  in  choral   groups,    or  student   groups,    or 
at   Charter  Day  banquets  and   the  like.      We   sort   of   became   known  as 
the  Faculty   Four   Plus  One,    at  a  number  of   events  which  were 
scheduled   in   town. 


77 


Kendrick:      To  augment  the   original   parodies,    we   tried  to   seek  out  little 
ballads  which  were  not  common  or  well  known.     Besides  these  we 
liked  to   sing  the  famous  Yale  Whiffenpoof  Song,   which  was  really 
beyond  our   capacity    level,    although  we  finally  became  pretty   good 
at  it.     We   sang  a  little   ditty    that    came  out   of   a   book   of   folk 
songs,     probably   of    English    origin,    called  "No  More  Booze."     Our 
repertoire   also   included   "Careless  Love,"  "Cruising  Down   the 
River,"  and  the  usual,    other  barbershop  quartet   songs   that  were 
easy    to  harmonize. 

Our   ultimate  experience  with  this   sort  of   thing  occurred  at 
a  fundraiser  put  on  by    the  Junior  Aid  of   Riverside,    the 
forerunner   of    the  Junior  League   of   Riverside,    at  an  event   in  that 
city.      The  Junior  Aid  engaged  a   producing   company   in  New   York  to 
come   out   and  produce   a  follies  in  which   the  local   talent  was   used 
in  a  whole   array   of    single  episodes  involving  duets  and   songs, 
comedy    skits  and   chorus  lines.      The  Junior  Aid  follies  needed  a 
quartet.      So  Dan's  wife,    Jean,    who  was   a  member   of    the 
organization  at  that  time,    said,    "Well,    why   don't  you   get  your 
quartet    down   there  and  try  out  for   this   sort   of    thing?" 

Well,    we   said,    "Sure,    we'll   try   out,"  and  we  did,    and  were 
selected.      So  for   two  years   running,    we  appeared  in  the  Junior 
Aid  Follies  in  the  municipal   auditorium   in  Riverside,    which  for 
two  nights  running  had  about   1,200    people   in  attendance. 

Lage:  This  was  big  time! 

Kendrick:      It  was   big  time,    and  we  figured  we  couldn't  top  that,    so  we  just 
stopped  appearing  after   that.       [laughter] 

Lage:  Are  you  the  group  that  Boyce   refers  to  as  teaching  the  new 

undergraduates   the  various   Cal    songs? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      That  actually   was  in  the  Boyce   book,    but   it  is   in  Dan 

Aldrich's   account   of    the    development    of    Riverside — yes,    that's 
the   group.      But  we   did  have   a  lot  of   fun,    and  I   think  that   the 
reason  that  it   stands  out  in  my  memory   is   because   of    the   success 
of    those  events  where  your   colleagues   see  you  in  a  different  role 
than  you're    usually   performing.       I   think   the   success   of    the 
Faculty    (Hub  Christmas   party    here  at  Berkeley    is   due   to  the  fact 
that  it's   a  faculty-participation  event,    and   the  more  you   get 
away    from    the   self-developed   capacity   to  entertain  yourself,    and 
replace  it  with  professional  entertainment,    the  more  you  lose 
faculty   unity. 

All   of    those  events  promoted  this  kind  of   faculty   unity   and 
camaraderie  that  were  important  in  setting  a   tone   of   unity   beyond 
your   department   and  your   own   special    interests. 


78 


Lage:  Now  what  time  period  are  we  talking  about?      When  was  the  Faculty 

dub  built? 

Kendrick:     We  built   that  about   1949.      Dan  left  Riverside   in  the   early 

fifties  to  move  to  Davis,    to   become   the   department    chair   there, 
so   all    of    this  was   in  the  late  forties  and  early    fifties. 


Research  Studies  in  Plant  Pathology  at  the  Citrus  Experiment  Station  in  Riverside. 

• 


Jim  Kendrick  and  John  Middleton  in 
Chula  Vista  celery  field,  1949. 


Virus  studies,  1952, 


Smog  chamber  studies,  1953.   Left  to  right:   Middleton,  Kendrick, 
Ellis  Darley. 


79 


IV      TRAININ3  GROUND   FOR  A  UNIVERSITY  ADMINISTRATOR: 
RIVERSIDE    CAMPUS  GOVERNANCE 


Establishment   of    the  Undergraduate  Liberal   Arts   College 
[Interview   4:      September  17,    1987]    //# 


Lage :  Today    is   September  17,    and  our   fourth   interview.      We're  going  to 

continue  with   the  University   of   California  at   Riverside   today. 

Kendrick:      The  other   things   besides  research   that  engage   and  occupy    a 

faculty   person's    time  are   the    committees  and  special   assignments. 
Being  a   person  who,    at  least,    is   not  reluctant   to  participate  in 
committees  of   one  kind  or  another,    I  naturally   became  involved 
with  departmental    committees  and  the  like.      Those  are  fairly 
minor;   they  just   give  you  a  flavor   of  learning  to  operate  in  a 
collective   sense   and  addressing  issues  that  affect  more  than 
yourself. 

The  real    change   in  these  kinds   of   activity   was  really 
associated  with  talk  about  expanding  Riverside  from  an  experiment 
station  into  a   teaching  college.       So   the  latter   part  of    the  1940s 
was  when  the  expansion,    potential  expansion,    of  an   undergraduate 
teaching  program   came  into  being  at  Riverside. 

Lage:  It  was   talked  about   that   soon,    back  in  the   postwar  years? 

Kendrick:      Yes,    in  the  late  forties,   '49,  '50.     As  a  matter  of  fact,   Provost 
[Gordon]   Watkins  was  appointed  to  chair  a  committee  that  was 
studying  the  potential    establishment   of   an  undergraduate  teaching 
program   in  the   southland.      Ultimately,    the   Citizens'   University 
Committee — a  committee  that  came  out  of   the  Riverside  Chamber  of 
Commerce,    composed  of  interested  Riverside   citizens — was 
instrumental    in  persuading  the  Regents  that  the  Riverside   campus 
was  a  likely   spot  to  locate   one   of   the   teaching  campuses   of    the 
University.      At    the   time   of    the  activity    of    the  Citizens' 
University   Committee,    one   of   the  important  members  of   that   group 
was   Philip  L.    Boyd,    who  was  a  businessman  and  a  former 


80 


Kendrick:      assemblyman  representing  Palm  Springs  and  surrounding  area.      He 
was  a   property    developer  and  investment  advisor.      Phil  Boyd  was 
later  appointed  to  the  Board  of  Regents  and  served  effectively 
for  about   twelve  or  fourteen  years. 

But  he,    like  his   colleagues  who  were    citizens   of   the 
community,    felt  that  Riverside  had  the  space   to  accommodate  an 
undergraduate   college,   and  he  was  quite  active  in  trying  to 
persuade   not  only   the  legislature  but  the  Regents  of    the 
University  and  the  administration  that   that  was  an  obvious   place 
to   expand   the  University's   offering   to   undergraduate   education. 
That  was   the   period,    too,    when  the  University,    during   the  latter 
part   of    Robert  Gordon  Sproul's   presidency    and  under   succeeding 
President   dark  Kerr,    was  planning  for  rapid  expansion. 

As   I   recall,    during  the  very   early    fifties  when  all   of    this 
talk  about  the  potential  expansion  into  a   teaching   campus  was 
going  on,    there  were  mixed  feelings  among  the  experiment   station 
personnel  about  whether  or  not   that  would   be  such  a   good  idea   or 
not.      I  had   described  earlier   that   it  was  a   fairly   comfortable 
research  environment.      There  was  not  much  to  interfere  with 
working  on  the  problems  in  which  you  were  engaged.      Scheduling 
field  experimentation  was  not   complicated  by  other  demands  on 
your   time,    and  therefore  the  experiment   station  staff   had  a  lot 
of  field  experimentation  underway. 

With   the  decision  by   the  Regents  that  the  Riverside   campus 
would  indeed  become   the   site   of   a   college   of  letters  and  science, 
things   began  to  change.      In  the  very  early   fifties,    Provost 
Watkins,   Gordon  Watkins,   who  I   think  at  the   time  was   dean  of    the 
College   of  Letters  and  Science   at  UCLA,   was  appointed  provost  of 
this   new    fledgling   college.     He  moved   to  Riverside   to   begin  to 
assemble  the  faculty   and  leaders  of    the  various  segments  of   this 
new    college.      A  number   of    things   began   to  happen.      Facilities  had 
to  be  built  for  the  new    college   and  a  wholly  new    faculty  had  to 
be  recruited  and  assembled.      All   of    that   took   time.      So   the 
influence   of    that  activity   was  not  all   that  obvious   to  those  of 
us  who  were  relatively  young  in  our  associations  with   the 
University,    but   nevertheless  it  had  an  impact. 

Lage:  It  didn't  affect  most  of  you  as  far  as  taking  on  a   teaching 

obligation? 

Kendrick:      No,    because  we  were  not  going  to  be   teaching  undergraduates.      The 
program   design  of    the   undergraduate   program   under  Watkins1  s 
leadership  was   to  be    a  small  liberal-arts  offering,    patterned 
much  like  the  Swarthmore  of   the  West  or  Reed  College.      It  was 
going  to  be   essentially   an  elite,    small,    intimate   undergraduate 
letters  and  science   offering.      They   did  not  envision  having   a 
graduate    program    at  all. 


81 


Kendrick:      So  the  four  or  five   people  who  were   employed  by    the  University 
under  Watkins's   direction  assembled  their  faculty   with  the  same 
kind  of   expectations   in  mind.      You  want  to  recall    that 
simultaneously   the  Davis   campus  was  declared  also  to  be   the  site 
of   another   college   of  letters  and  science.      The    same  was   to 
happen  at  San  Diego,    which  had  been  the  location  for  a  long  time 
of   the   Scripps   Institution  of   Oceanography's   long  and    illustrious 
activity   with   the  University   of    California.      It   had  a  little  more 
graduate   training  involvement,   but  it   did  not  have  an 
undergraduate    program. 

So   the  three   campuses  were  being  developed  as   undergraduate 
letters  and  science  teaching  campuses   along  about   the    same   time. 
Santa   Cruz    and  Irvine   came   on  slightly   later,    but   not  much.      It 
was  a   great    period   of  expansion  for   the  University    of    California. 
Everyone   involved  previously  with  the  University   was  not  without 
some   effect   of    that   expansion. 

I   recall   that  my   own  view    about  the  likelihood  of   developing 
an  undergraduate   program  at  Riverside  was  one   of   approval   and 
enthusiasm.      I   felt   that  it  would  bring  a   challenge   to   the 
environment  and  introduce  a   broader  life   of   the  University    than 
we  were  experiencing  as  kind  of    an  outpost   of    the  University. 
Part  of   that,    I   think,   was  a  holdover  of   my  memories   of    going  to 
Davis  and  seeing  a   full-fledged   campus,    even  though   it  was  an 
agriculture   campus,    and  my  experience  at   the  University   of 
Wisconsin,    plus   the  fact   that   I  had  done  my   undergraduate  work  at 
Berkeley,    although  agriculture  was  a  very    small    part   of    the 
campus.      So  I  viewed  the  expansion  into  liberal   arts  with  some 
degree   of   enthusiasm.      In  reflection,    I   think   that   there  was   some 
over— expectation,    but   nevertheless  we'll  get  into   that  a  little 
bit  later. 


Lage: 


Kendrick: 


The   undergraduate   college   at  Riverside  was  to  be   developed 
within  four   principal    divisions:     Ed   Coman,    the  librarian  and   a 
member  of   the  team   of   planners,    was  employed  early   to  begin 
assembling  a  library;  a   division  head  for   the   physical   sciences 
was  appointed,    Conway   Pierce;   the  life  science   program  was   to  be 
an  integrated  program  and  Herman  Spieth  was  identified  as   the 
leader   for   that;    the  humanities  area  was   to  be   put   together  by 
John  Olmsted;   and  the  social  science   program  was  to  be   put 
together  by   Arthur   Turner.      Overall,    with   the  dean  of    the 
college,   who  was  Robert  Nisbet,    they   became   the   principal 
architects  of    the  faculty   that  was   assembled  for   the   college. 

Were   they    all   drawn  from   the  University   of    California? 

No.      Herman  Spieth   came  from   New   York,    I  think  the  City   College 
of  New  York.      Conway   Pierce   came  from   Pomona;   Robert  Nisbet   came 
from  Berkeley;   John  Olmsted,    I   think,    from   UCLA,    I'm  not   sure. 


82 


Kendrick:      Arthur  Turner  was  a  Scotchman,    and  I   don't  really   know  where  he 
came   from.      There  was  also  a  physical   education  component,    and 
Jack  Hewitt  was  asked  to   develop   that   program. 

Those  men  were  mature,    well-established  professionals,    and 
they  had  an  opportunity   to  become   pretty   well   acquainted  with    the 
existing  experiment   station  staff.      They   participated  socially 
and  were  incorporated  into  the  life   of    the   campus  at  the   time. 
Provost  Watkins  was  a  very   charming  person,    and  his  wife,    Anna, 
was  quickly  accepted  by   the   community  as  a   great  asset,    as  he 
was.      He  explained  in  very   articulate  terms  what  he  had  in  mind 
to   provide   a  wonderful   experience   of    undergraduate   education. 

The   space   that  was  assigned  for   these   people   to  operate  in 
was  an  abandoned   chicken   coop   up  near   the   original    director's 
residence,     so  they   operated  under  very    Spartan  circumstances. 
But  they   proceeded,    nevertheless,    to  develop  the   concept   that 
was  well-meaning,    but   probably,    in  retrospect,    did  not  have  much 
of  a   chance  to  succeed  with   the  University's   overall    program. 


The  New   Academics;      Relations  with  Agricultural    Researchers  and 
The  Riverside    Community 


Kendrick:     They   did  set  the  pattern  for  liberal    arts  education  at  the 

University   of   California,    Riverside,    that  has   some  residues   even 
today.      The  faculty   that  was  assembled  by  them   in  these  four 
major  undergraduate  offerings  for  the  most   part  were  assistant 
professors.      They   did  not  really  plan  to  set  their  faculties  in 
motion  by   recruiting  professors,   associate   professors  and 
assistant   professors  with  an  age   spread  so  that  there  would  be 
varying  representations  of  maturity  and  experience.      So  what  we 
had  in  those   initial    stages  was  a  prominence   of   beginning 
professionals  in  various  fields  associated  with   the  liberal   arts 
and  the  physical   and  life  sciences  all  assembled  with  the 
expectation  that  they  were   going  to  offer  a  very    demanding  and 
comprehensive   liberal    arts  education  at   the  undergraduate  level. 

You  can  imagine — maybe  you  can't — that   that   group  of  young 
professionals  arriving  on  a  campus  where  there  was  a  well- 
established  agricultural   component  of  faculty  and   staff,    mixed 
about  as  well   as  oil  and  water.      The  agriculture  program  was 
regarded  by   these  young  idealists  in  the  liberal   arts  as  less 
than  worthy   of   a   rigorous   academic  program,    and  on  the  contrary, 
the  attitude  of  a  great  many   of    the  agricultural   experiment 
station  people  was   that   these   new    assistant  professors  really 
didn't  know   what  life  was   all   about,   and   that   they   lived  in  a 
dream  world.      They   didn't  mind  criticizing  established 
institutions,   and   this   caused  a   certain  amount   of    stir  in   the 


83 


Ker.drick:      community.      They   were  questioning  the  establishment,    so   to  speak. 
Therefore,    an  academic   tension  really   developed,    not   unlike   the 
traditional    distance   between  the   sciences  and  the  humanities  as 
it  exists   or.  almost  any   general    university    campus. 

But   in  addition,    because   it  was  an  agricultural    group  on  the 
one  hand,    all  well  established,    and  these — 

Lage  :  And  the  difference   in  ages  between  the  two  groups   played  a   role? 

Kendrick:      That's   right,    age   did  make  a   difference.      Also   the  fact    that    this 
new    teaching  activity   had  invaded  some  experiment   station  land 
created  a  tension  between  two  factions   of   the   campus. 

Although   this  is,    I   think,    a  fair  description  of    the  whole, 
it    certainly   is  not  an  adequate    description   of   individual 
relationships,    because   some   of   us  were  able   to  see  the  value   of 
social  science  and  humanities  in  education  and  were  willing  to 
accept   the  notion  that  others  had  a   point  of  view    that  they  were 
justified  in  expressing.      And  that,    in  the  long  run,    it  would   be 
in   the   best   interests  of    the  development  of    the  University's 
offering  on  the   campus  to  have  a  broadened  program,    although  it 
did  interfere  with   the  sort  of   single-minded  dedication  to 
research  that  was  aimed  primarily  in  solving  the   citrus  and 
subtropical    problems   of   southern  California. 

With  the  program  which  got   underway   formally  with  students 
in  1953,   a  benefit  for   the  experiment   station — a  tangible 
benefit — was  that  Webber  Hall  was   built.      It   provided  for   the 
first   time   adequate   physical    space   for  the  department  of   plant 
pathology.      It  also   provided   space  for   the    department   of 
nematology,    and  what  was  then  called  plant  biochemistry. 

Lage:  So  the  experiment  station  was   departmentalized,    but   the   college 

was  organized  by   divisions? 

Kendrick:      That's   right.      The   philosophy    of    that   early    college   instruction 

was  an  integrated  education.      It  was   illustrated  by   the  fact   that 
the   concept  of  an   undergraduate  education  was  not   to  be 
compartmentalized;    it  was  to  be  broad  exposure  to  western 
civilization  and   the  arts  and   the   social   sciences,   with   a  flavor 
of    the  life   and  physical    sciences  and  the  humanities.      For 
example,    there  was  no  department  of   botany,    and  no   department   of 
zoology   or  psychology.      It  was  a   division  of   life   sciences,    with 
those    components  a   part  of   it.      Every   undergraduate   student  had 
to   take   a  course  in  western  civilization,    I  believe  it  was 
called.      It  was  basically   a  humanities   course,    which  was   team- 
taught,    but  led  by   a  couple  of   humanists.      It  was   really   a  killer 
of  a   course  because   students  were  expected   to   cover  a  massive 
amount  of   material   associated  with  western  civilization  or  the 


84 


Kendrick:  development  of  western  civilization  in  general.  It  included  the 
languages,  as  well  as  the  cultural  aspects  and  the  political  and 
social  structures. 

It's   interesting  that   today's   reemphasis   on    undergraduate 
education  is  restoring  the   place   of   humanities  and   social    studies 
in  general   education  curricula.      I   think  that   to  some   extent   it 
was   too  bad   that   that  experiment  at   Riverside  failed.      I 
understand,    however,    that  we  just  could  not  sustain  the  kind  of 
elitist  education  for  a  relatively    small    segment   of    students. 

Lage:  Why   do  you  call  it  elitist? 

Kendrick:     Well,    not  financially   elitist,    but  intellectually   elitist.      The 
expectation  of   performance  was  really   at  the  top  of   the  grading 
scale.      The  workload  piled  onto   the   students  was  massive.      You 
can  imagine   that  new    graduates,    professionals,    particularly 
assistant   professors,    having  finished   their  education  in    places 
like   Reed  and   Swarthmore  and  maybe  Berkeley   and  UCLA  and 
elsewhere,    designed  their  courses  with  a  very   strict  yardstick 
for  performance.      So  that  Riverside   developed  an  early    reputation 
as  a   tough   place   to   get   through.      So   the  elitist  reference    that 
I'm   making  is   not  economic,    but  intellectual   elitism    strong  in 
culture,    philosophy  and   thoughtful  ness,    but    short   on  what  you 
really  call   a  practical   education  by   which   to  make   a  living. 
That  may  be   stretching  the   term   "elitism"  a  little  more   than  it 
should  be,    but   it   certainly   was  an  education  for   the  few  and  not 
the  general. 

One  of   our  most  famous  early  undergraduate  students  was 
Charles  Young    [chancellor  at  UCLA],   who  was  a  member   of    the  first 
graduating  class.      He  certainly  does  not  prove  my   point,    however. 
He  transferred  to  UCLA  and  majored  in  political   science  as   a 
graduate   student — a  "practical"  education  in  one   sense   of    the 
term. 


Fa c ul ty   Organization  in  an  Academic  Senate 


Kendrick:      Well,    I  already    made   reference   to   the  fact   that  physically   the 
plant   pathologists,    biochemists,   and  nematologists  were  much 
better  off  by   having  that  college   come  to  town  because  we  got  a 
modern  building  with  adequate  space  in  which   to  function.      That 
was  quite  a  significant   benefit  as   far  as  we  were  concerned.      The 
intangible   development  of   this   program  meant  that   there  had  to   be 
some  kind  of    a  faculty   organization,    so  that  the  Academic  Senate 
began  to  form,   with  all   of  its   committee   structure  and  apparati 
that  went   along  with   that. 


85 


Lage: 


Ker.drick: 


Lage  : 


Ken d rick ; 


It   strikes  me  that  having  all   these  young  faculty   members  would 
be  very   difficult  in  terms  of    university    governance,    their  not 
having  had  experience  with  an  academic  senate  model   and  faculty 
committees. 

You  would  have   thought  so,    but  they  quickly  acclimated  themselves 
to  a   self-governance   posture.      [laughs]      And  quickly    they   became 
typical    academic  participants  in  that   structure.      Even  though   it 
was  small,    it  was  easy  to  know   most  of   the   people  who  were  the 
faculty.      And  they   gradually  began  to  put   together   the   standard 
committees   on  educational   policy,    courses,    budget,    welfare,    etc. 


Lage: 
Ken d rick  : 


And  the  experiment   station  was  a   part  of    this? 


The 


Not  initially.      That's  a  subject  for  another    small    chapter, 
experiment   station  appointees,    except   for   the  chairs  of    the 
various   departments,   were  not  members  of   the  Academic   Senate. 
They   did  not  have   professorial    titles.      I   mentioned  that  my 
initial   appointment  was  as   a  junior   plant   pathologist.      The   title 
"junior"  was   comparable   to  an  instructor   rank  at   that   time.      The 
next   step  up  was  assistant   plant   pathologist,    which  was 
comparable    to  an  assistant   professor,    and  so  on. 

H 

The  heads  of   experiment   station  departments  were  granted 
professional   titles  because  there  needed   to   be   some  academic 
professorial    oversight  for   the  occasional   graduate  student  who 
was  farmed  out,    so  to  speak,    from  Berkeley,    UCLA,    or  Davis   to 
finish   off   a  thesis   program   in  residence   at  Riverside.      So   there 
was  a  j  ustif  ication  for  a   professorial   representation  of   the 
department,    and  that   usually   was  a   part  of    the  chair's 
responsibility. 

So   the  department   chairs   took  on  a   teaching  role. 

That's    correct.      And  those    chairs   participated   in   the    senate 
development.      You  remember   that   I   indicated  that  the  bulk  of   the 
faculty  in  the   College   of  Letters  and  Science  were  young 
assistant   professors  just   starting  out   in  their  professional 
careers.      The  majority   of  our   chairs   of   the  experiment   station 
departments  were  old  hands,    experienced  in    [laughs]    life  and 
their   profession.      So   there  was   some  built-in   conflicts   of   points 
of    view. 

The  zealous   enforcement  of   rigorous  academic  contributions 
and  original  work  held  by   the  letters  and  science  faculty  was  not 
exactly  compatible  with  what  the  experiment   station  leadership 
felt  was   the   proper   contributions  from   their  research   programs, 
because   a  lot  of    research  was   field-oriented  and  of   practical 
nature.      So  there  was  room   for   disagreement   on  justification  of 


86 


Kendrick:      advancements.       I'm  just   talking  about   things   in   general,    not  any 
specific   cases   that   I   remember,    but   I  want   to  lay   the  foundation 
of  what  led  to  much  of   the    conflict   between   personnel   in  the   CES 
and  the  college.      The  mixing  of    a  small   liberal-arts 
undergraduate   offering  with  an  established  agricultural 
experiment   station  program   sounded  like   a  good  idea  to  the 
citizens  of  the   city  and  to  the  administration  as   they  needed   tc 
advance   and  expand  the  offerings   of    the  University,    but   it  was 
not  anything  more  than  a   shotgun  marriage  as   far  as   the    people 
who  were  engaged  in  this  were  concerned.     And  it's  important   to 
realize  that  because  that  element  of  disagreement   between  the 
early   liberal-arts  faculty,    some  of  whom   are  still  at  Riverside, 
and  the  experiment  station  personnel,    some  of  whom  are  also   still 
active  at  Riverside,    continues  to  exist   even  today.      As   the 
campus   grows  in  size   I  expect  this    conflict   to   become   only   a 
memory. 

Lage :  Are  there  more  experiment  station  people  now    involved  in 

teaching? 

Kendrick:      Well,   yes.      And  most   of    the  experiment   station  people  have 

academic   titles.      A  lot  of   the  young  faculty  who  were  assembled 
in  the  liberal   letters  and  science   department  have  gone  to  other 
places.      There  has   been  a   change,    but  I   could  still   feel    the 
tensions  of   trying  to  marry   a  liberal    arts  activity  with  a  very 
practical  experiment   station  program  when   I  was  vice   president. 

Lage:  Well,    it  also  seems  to  go  on  in  the  Berkeley   campus.      Henry  Vaux 

talked  about   problems   getting  the  Academic  Senate   budget 
committee   to  recognize   the  practical   needs  of   the  School   of 
Forestry  as    they    chose    their   professors.* 

Kendrick:      Absolutely.       That's  very    true.       I   think   it's    sort   of    built   into 
the  academic  traditions  of  a   campus   that  has   professional   school 
offerings   as  well   as   the  letters  and  science   and  liberal   arts 
education.       I   think  it's   unfortunate,    but  you  find   that  extremism 
exists.      I  call   it  academic  snobbery — expressed  symbolically  by 
the  following  bit   of   academic  folklore:      "What    I'm    doing  is   basic 
research,    but  what  you're   doing  is  applied  research."     That 
attitude    comes   to   the  foreground   every   once  in  a  while.      And  it 
gets  expressed  in  peer  evaluations,    particularly    if  you  are 
operating   (as  you've    said  Henry  has    described  it)    in  a   budget 
committee  where  the  representation  on  a  small  committee  is 
usually  overbalanced  by  academic  peers   from  letters  and  science 
versus   the  practical   subject  matter  departments.     Well,    all   that 
existed  at   Riverside    also. 


*  Henry  J.    Vaux,    Forestry   in  the  Public   I?-terest;      Education. 
Economics,    State   Policy.    1933-1983.    1987. 


87 

Development   of   a  Graduate   Program 


Kendrick:      Another  thing  happened  that  was  important  in  the   development   of 
the  Riverside    campus,    which   changed  things.      While   the  early 
years   of    the  letters  and  science,   liberal-arts  education  was 
steaming  along  in  pretty    good  shape,    there  was  an  undercurrent  of 
unhappiness   developing  with   the   program   in  the   physical   sciences, 
particularly   in  chemistry   and  physics,    under   Conway    Pierce.      The 
unhappiness  stemmed  from  being  limited  to  only   undergraduate 
education.       In  the   sciences  they    realized  that   they   had  to  have 
laboratory   research  to  publish  in  reputable   publications,    in 
order  for   them    to  advance.      To   do   this   research,    they   needed 
help;    they   needed   assistants. 

At   the  experiment   station  at  Riverside  we  needed  assistants 
too;    we   couldn't   do  everything  ourselves.      So  our  resources  were 
invested  by   and  large  in  what  we  would  call  laboratory 
technicians.      They   are   today   referred  to  as   SRAs,    scientific 
research   assistants.      So  it  became   the  expected  pattern  for 
researchers  at   the   CES  at  Riverside   to  have  resources  not  only 
for  our   own  salaries,    but  also  for   travel   and  equipment  and  other 
supplies  and  expenses.      Each  member   of   the  experiment   station 
located  at  Riverside   had  a  minimum   of   one  technician  and  some  of 
us  had  one  and  a  half,    two,    or  more.      So  we  had  essentially    a 
mini-research  laboratory   or   staff.      On  those   campuses  with 
undergraduate  and   graduate  education,    those  resources  went  into 
research   assistants,    and  those  positions  were  occupied  primarily 
by   graduate   students.      So   those  support  funds    contributed   to 
teaching.      That  was  a  major  difference   in  the  way   Riverside   used 
its   support  for  research,    in   contrast  to  Davis  and  Berkeley, 
which   also  had  components  of   the  experiment   station  where  their 
resources  for  the  most   part  went  into   graduate   programs  with   a 
minimum   number  of   technical   assistants. 

Well,    coming  back  to  the   physical   sciences,    they  looked  with 
envy   at  all   the  lab  assistants  we  had  on  experiment   station  funds 
for  our  research.      They    [the   physical   scientists]    developed   as 
best   they   could  an  undergraduate  research  opportunity,    which  was 
a  marvelous   teaching  technique.      The  advanced  undergraduates  were 
able   to  get  a  little  bit   of   money   and,    at  the  same  time,    help  a 
senior   professor  with  a  research   program,    and   get  introduced  to 
that  kind  of    activity.      It  was   not  only   a  great   teaching  aid  but 
it  was  also  a  stepping  stone  for   their   own  education  and  further 
development.      But   that  kind  of   assistance  was   not  really   enough 
to   satisfy    the   demand   of    the  faculty   in  the    physical    sciences. 

So,   with   the  help  of    the  life   science   group,    they   moved  to 
establish  a   graduate   program  at   Riverside.      That  was   the  first 
leak  in  the  dam,    as  far  as  a   small,    undergraduate,    exclusively 
liberal   arts  education  was    concerned. 


88 


Kendrick:      They  were  helped  in   their   efforts   by    those    of    us  in  the 

experiment   station  who  felt  that  we  also  would  enhance   our  own 
program   by   broadening  it  and  elevating  its  quality   by   having 
graduate   programs   in  the  agricultural   sciences  that  were 
represented  at  Riverside.      So   ultimately,    that   change  was  made, 
and  a   graduate   division  was  established  at  Riverside.      The  first 
graduate  dean,    as   I  recall,   was  Ralph  March,   who  was  a   professor 
of    entomology. 

Lage:  Was  he   part  of   the  experiment   station? 

Kendrick:     Yes.     So  as  I  say,   that  was  a  break  in  the  concept  of 

undergraduate  liberal  education  at  Riverside.      And  it  was   the 
first  instance  where  there  was  a  joining  together  of   experiment 
station  personnel  and  a  portion  of   the  letters  and  science 
original    faculty    for  a  common  goal,    to  establish  a  graduate 
educational   program  at  Riverside. 

Lage:  Do  you  remember  what  the  date  would  be? 

Kendrick:     Well,    it  would  be  in  the  late  fifties  or  early   sixties.      I   think 
chemistry   probably   had  the  first   accepted  and  recognized  graduate 
program.      It  is  a  major   undertaking  to   develop  a   graduate 
program.      It  is   not  enough   to  just   declare  your   interest   in 
graduate  programs.      You  have  to  jump  through  a  lot   of  academic 
hoops   in  the  process.      Curricula  and   courses  must   be   designed  and 
developed.      They  must  be  accepted  by    the    graduate    council. 
Financial    support  must   be    sought  from    the  administration.      So  it 
took  a  lot  of  doing  to   propose  what  you  would  offer  as  a   graduate 
program  before  it  was   ultimately  approved  and  recognized. 
Finally,    the  successful   departments  would   be   given  authority    to 
train    graduate    students   for    the   Ph.D.s   and/or   masters    degrees. 
You  had   to   do  more   than  just   declare   that  you're   interested   ir    a 
graduate    program. 

These  early   graduate  proposals  had  to  be   fought  through   the 
local   campus  educational   policy  and   course  approval    committees, 
which  was  not  easy  because  of   the  committee  domination  by   faculty 
from    the   social   sciences  and  humanities.      Professors   in  these 
fields  were  not  thrilled  with  graduate  programs  coming  into  being 
to  interfere  with   their   emphasis   on  the   undergraduate   education. 
But   the   steamroller  was   underway,    and  it   ultimately  prevailed. 
[The  Graduate   Division  was  established   in  1961.] 

I  had  great  enthusiasm   for  the  potential   development  of   the 
graduate   programs  because,    from   somewhat   of  a   selfish  point   of 
view,    I   felt   that   the  quality   of    research   in  plant   pathology 
would  improve  immeasurably  if  we  had  the   stimulating  experience 
of    training  students,    particularly   graduate   students.      For   one 
thing,    I  felt  that  it  would  prevent   the   kind  of   narrcv    emphasis 
that  a   pure  research   program    tends   to  develop  because,    when  you 


89 


Kendrick:      begin  to   study   more  and  more  about  less  and  less,    you   don't  have 
any    other   challenges.      But   if  you  have   to  offer  a   course   in  a 
subject  once  in  a  while,    you  have   to   get  out  and  find  out  what 
the   rest   of  your   professional   world  is  all   about.      And  I    felt, 
and  it  was   shared  by  a  number   of   my    colleagues   in  the    department, 
that  our  whole  program  would  improve. 

I   don't  think  we  realized  quite  as  much  at   the    time  just  how 
much   it  would  interfere  with  our  devotion  of   time  to  the  research 
program,    but  that  seemed  to  me  a   small   consequence   to   pay   for 
improving  the  quality   and  academic  stature  of   the  program.      So  I 
was  an   unqualified  endorser   of    the   graduate    development. 

The  other   thing  that  happened  with  the  development  of   the 
graduate   program  in  the  agricultural   sciences  was   that  it 
legitimized  the  expansion  of    the  professorial   titles  for 
experiment   station   people.      If  you  became  involved  in   designing  a 
program   of    instruction  or   supervising  graduate   students,    then 
that  qualified  you  for  an  academic   title  in  addition  to  your 
experiment    station  title.      And  that  meant,    then,    that  you  had 
full   license   to   practice  in  the   other   part   of   academic  life,   and 
that  was   participating  in  the  Academic   Senate  activity. 

Well,    that  was  also  a   goal.      I  felt   that   if  we  were   going  to 
be   a  unified   campus,    we  had  to  have  as  much  participation  in  the 
total  life   of   the   campus  and  not    carry   a  we/they — those   of  you  up 
on  the  hill,    and  we  down  here  in  the  former  walnut   orchard — 
attitude.      So   that   the   senate   provided  an  opportunity   under    this 
expanded  program   of   graduate  instruction  to  meld  together  some 
more   of    the  faculty   activities.      There  was  a   great  expansion  in 
the   early    sixties — '61,    '62.    '63 — of    people   in  the   experiment 
station  being   granted  academic   professorial    titles. 

Lage  :  Did  that  create  a  problem?      Were  the  personnel   at  the  experiment 

station  all   suited  for   this  academic   title,   having  been  hired 
just   for  research?     Did  they   then  get   evaluated  again  to   see   if 
the  academic   title — ? 

Kendrick:      I   don't   recall   that   the  academic  titles  were  evaluated  by    the 

budget  committee,    but  there  was  an  evaluation.      It  may   have   beer, 
administrative.      It  was   based  not  on  research  as  much   as  whether 
or  not  one  was  engaged  in  instruction,    either   through  supervising 
graduate   students  or  in  charge   of   seminars,    or  offering  formal 
courses.      There  was   no  qualification  relative   to  whether  or  not 
the  kind  of    research  you  were  doing  qualified  you  for  a 
professorial    title.      As   a  matter   of   fact,    if    that   criterion  had 
been  applied  to   the  early   assemblage   of    the  letters  and  science 
faculty,    not  very  many   of   them  would  have  qualified,    because   they 
were  not  research-oriented,    and  they    had  a  very   scant   record  of 
having  had  much  accomplished.      Most  of   them  were  just  out   of 
school    and  had   done   a   thesis   problem,    and  that's  about   the   extent 


90 


Kendrick:      to  which   they   had   contributed  research.      As   a  matter   of   fact, 
because   it  was   not  a   research-oriented   group  of   young  faculty, 
they   ultimately  had   difficulties  advancing  in   their   professorial 
ranks,    and  that  I'll  come  to  a  little  bit  later  because    I  had 
some   personal  experience  and  involvement  in  that  aspect   of    some 
of    the   campus  life  at  Riverside. 


Directing   the   Design  for  a   Physical   Master   Plan.    1959 


Kendrick:      My  title  as  professor  came  along  about  1961.      It  was  at   that 

point   that   I  became   even  more   thoroughly  exposed  and  engaged  in 
some   of    the  Academic  Senate  activities.      Prior   to   that,    one    of 
the  major  assignments  given  to  me  in  1959  was  to  chair  a  small 
committee  to  plan  for  the  expansion  of    the  Riverside    campus   to   a 
student   body    size  of   5,000   in  the  first  phase  and  to  10,000 
students  as  a  second  phase,    including  both  graduate  and 
undergraduate   education.      Chancellor  Herman  Spieth  who   succeeded 
Provost  Watkins  as  the  chief  campus  officer  asked  if   I  would 
chair  that  effort.      I   spent   most   of   1959   on  that  assignment,    with 
about   six  other   colleagues.      Chancellor  Spieth  appointed  me  as 
special    assistant   to  the  Chancellor  for   the  assignment. 

I  accepted  that  appointment  not   knowing  anything  about 
physical    master   planning,    and  there  was   not  much  history 
available  to  draw   upon,    nor  was  there  anybody  at  Riverside  with 
any   knowledge   about   how    one  goes  about   drawing  up  those   physical 
master   plans.      But   I  quickly    determined   that   I'd   better  make 
contact  with   the  physical    planning  office   of   UCLA  and  gain  as 
much  information  as   I   could  from    that  institution.      I   spent   a 
good   deal    of    time   associated  with  George  Vernon  Russell,    who  had 
been  appointed  earlier  as   the   supervising  architect  for   the 
Riverside    campus. 

The  experience   of    trying  to  formulate  a  basis  for  how    many 
students  one  might  expect  to  enroll   in  your   graduate   program,    hew 
many    undergraduate   students  will   be    there,    how    many  you're  going 
to  provide  a  physical  residence  for,    and  what  offerings   might 
expand,    was  really  an  education  for  me. 

Lage:  So  you  were  concerned  with  the  physical   development  as  well  as 

the  program  development,    is  that  correct? 

Kendrick:     Well,    the  charge  of   the  committee  was  to  design  a  campus  plan  to 
physically   accommodate   a   student   body   of   5,000   students  by   1970, 
I   guess.      And  to  not  ignore   the  fact   that  it   might   go  to   10,000 
students  in  another  decade.      So  our  charge  was  primarily   to 
design  a   physical   plant,   but  we   could  not   design  a   physical- pie  rtt 
without  having  some  sort  of   notion  of  what  the  academic  planning 


91 


Kendrick:     was  to  be  about.      So   I  would  not   start  with  a   physical   plan 
without   an  academic  plan  in  hand  because  you  can't  plan  a 
physical   plant  without   knowing  what  you're   going  to  put   into  it. 

Lacking  an  academic  plan  that  addressed  itself  to  how    many 
students  were   going  to  be  about  and  where  they  would  be,    we  had 
to  dredge    up  that  information  as   a   forerunner   to  being  able  to 
design  classrooms  and  classroom   sizes,    and  whether   the   physical 
sciences  were  going  to  have  more  students  than  the  social 
sciences   or   the  life   sciences   or  what  have  you.      So  we  had  a  lot 
of    spade-work,    so   to  speak,    to  do   in  consulting  with   those 
departments  and  getting  their  best  estimate   of  where   they    thought 
they   were  going  to  go.      The  whole   plan  really  was  predicated  on 
the  basis  of   a  lot   of  wishful    thinking,    in  terms   of   existing 
faculty    and   chairs.       But  we  nevertheless  produced  a   plan — I've 
still    got  a   copy   of   it  here — that   I    don't   think  existed  very   long 
with  any    great   degree  of    authenticity,    but  it  certainly   provided 
a   useful  education  for   the   seven  or   eight   of   us    [laughter]    who 
spent  a   great   deal   of    time   endeavoring  to  produce   a  master   plan. 

That   particular  activity   began  to  introduce  me   to   people  in 
the   systemwide   administration  because   I  had  to  do  a  lot  of 
consultation  away  from   Riverside  to  understand  how    one  approached 
the  planning  effort.      It  also  introduced  me   to  the  concept   of 
space   standards  and  how   much   space  you   develop  for  a   graduate 
student  versus   a   research  lab  versus  a  library   versus   this   that 
and   the   other   thing.      So   all    the   nomenclature   of   university 
activity  became  somewhat  familiar  to  me,    with  these  activities. 

Lage:  It   sounds  like   the   kind  of  job   that  would  be   given  to  a 

professional   planner,    rather   than  to  a   group  of   faculty    from 
different  fields. 


Kendrick:      That  is  absolutely   correct.      And  I  learned  and  became  acquainted 
with  a  number   of   professional   planners  in  my    travels. 

Lage:  Were   they   put   at  your  disposal? 

Kendrick:      No;   well,    not  really  put  at  my   disposal,    but    I  was   given  leeway 
to  go  and  visit  with   them,    and — 

Lage:  You  didn't  have  a   paid   professional   at  your   side? 

Kendrick:      No  paid  assistants  at  all.      This  was   taken  right  out   of    the  hides 
of — I  was   given  essentially  half-time  relief  from   my  research 
duties  to  do   this   sort  of    thing.      The  rest  of   the  committee  was 
not.      They   met  on   call,    and  we  had  a  lot  of   called  meetings. 

Riverside    did  not  have  a  professional    planning  unit.      They 
did  not  have   a  lot   of   resources   in  the  administration  to   do   this 
sort   of    thing,    so  much   of    the  activities   came  right  out   of   the 


92 


Kendrick:      hides  of   the  faculty  whom   the  leadership   could  find  willing  to 
take   it   on.      I  must   say    I   did  it  without  really   realizing  how 
much  effort  and  time   I  was   going  to   get   into  and  just  how 
ignorant    I   was  about   that. 

Lage:  You  must  have  learned  a   great   deal. 

Kendrick:      I   emphasize   this  experience  because  it  was  my   initial 

introduction  into  beginning  to   understand   the  University   as   a 
whole,    compared  with  just  the  Department  of   Plant   Pathology   in 
one   small   unit  in  an  isolated  area  of    the    state. 

That  activity   just  about   finished  me  off.      I  was  becoming  so 
involved  with  that  as  well  as  some  other  administrative 
committees  that   I   sought  a   sabbatical   leave.      I   determined,    as   I 
indicated,    that   I  wanted  to   go  to  England  to   spend   some   time  with 
Dennis  Garrett,    a  lecturer  in  plant   pathology    in  the  botany 
department  at  the  University  of   Cambridge,   who  was  an  authority 
on  root  disease   pathogens.      I  had  also  determined  that  I  would 
like  to  spend  some   time  at  the  famous  Rothamsted  agricultural 
experiment    station  in  England,    at  Harpenden. 

Lage:  So  that  puts  your  sabbatical  leave  in  the   context  of  what  was 

going  on  in  your  life  at  the  time. 

Kendrick:      Yes,    I  expected  it  to  kind  of   clear  the   decks  and  separate  me 

from    all  of    those  non-research  activities.      In  the  latter   part  of 
1960,    I  applied  for  a  senior  postdoctoral   fellowship  with  the 
National    Science   Foundation  and  was   granted  one.      I  was  quite 
thrilled  to  receive  one  because  it   provided  the  wherewithal   for 
me  to  take   a  year  off  and  take  my   family  to  England,    with  the 
subsequent  experiences  of    rambling  a   bit  around  England  and   the 
rest   of    Europe.      That  sabbatical   was   taken  in  1961   and  '62.    and 
was  at  an  odd  part   of    the  year.      We  left  in  February   and   came 
home   at   the  end  of    February    in  "62.      I   think  that   I   said   I    cace 
home  with  renewed  enthusiasm  about  becoming  a  plant   pathologist 
once   again  and  making  some   satisfying  studies   in  an  area  that  I 
felt  was  deficient  in  knowledge,    that  being  the  population 
dynamics  of    soil-borne   pathogens,    and  trying  to   understand  the 
relationship  of  microbiological    populations   to   the  incidence   of 
pathogenesis   and   the   subsequent    severity   of    the  root   diseases. 


Chairman  of    the  Department   of    Plant   Pathology.    1963   ## 


Kendrick:      I  returned  from  England   to  Riverside  in   March   of   1962.      In   the 
meantime,    my    father  had  become  ill   and  was  really  not  well   at 
all.      A  number   of  years  earlier  he  had  developed  cancer  of    the 


93 


Kendrick:  larynx  and  had  radiation  treatments,  so  his  voice  was  somewhat 
raspy.  But  emphysema  was  gaining  ground  on  him  in  early  1962, 
and  he  ultimately  succumbed  on  May  30,  1962. 

My    father's   death   is   still  quite  vivid  in  my    mind  because   I 
was  with  him  in  the  hospital  when  he  expired.      We  had  become  very 
close   by    that   time.      He  was  following  my   career  with  a  great  deal 
of   interest  and  encouragement.      I  had  just   become   a   professor   of 
plant   pathology   by    that  time.      He  followed  my   activities,    but    I 
hadn't  yet   emerged   into  any   leadership  role. 

The   chair  of    the  department   through  this  period  was  John 
Middleton,    my    colleague   of  long  standing.      We    continued  our   close 
consultative   type   relationship  through  his   chairmanship  just  as 
we   did  in  our  various  research  programs:      some  things  we   did 
together  and  some  things  we  did  apart,    but  we  were  always  in  very 
close   communication.      So  throughout  his  administration  of    the 
department,    I  was   kind  of   unofficially    involved  in  sitting  in  for 
him  when  he  was  absent,   representing  him  on  various   departmental 
assignments  when  he  had  other   things   to  do.      We  talked  a  lot 
about  how  we  would  like  to  see  the   department   develop  in  terms   of 
new    positions  or  changed  positions  which  we  felt  were  necessary 
to  augment  our   course   offering  and  research  agenda.      So   I   felt 
very   close   to   some  of    the  administrative  activities  of   the 
department. 

By   that   time,    John  had  become  almost  totally  interested  in 
the  air  pollution  program  and  was  pursuing  that  with  a   great    deal 
of   vigor.       It  was   in  late  1962  or   early  '63,    that   the   university 
followed  his  advice  and  established   the   statewide  Air  Pollution 
Research   Center  at  Riverside,    with  him  as   director.      He   perceived 
that  he  really    could  not   be   the   director   of    the   statewide  Air 
Pollution  Research   Center  and  chairman  of   the  Department  of   Plant 
Pathology   simultaneously,    so  he  resigned  from  his   department 
chairship.      After  Dean  Boyce   consulted  with   the  departmental 
faculty,   he  found  no   serious  opposition  to   my   succeeding  John,    so 
I   became   the  chair  of   Plant   Pathology    in  the  fiscal  year 
beginning   in  July   of   1963. 

That,    as   I   think  I   mentioned,    really   marked  the  beginning  of 
my  withdrawal  from   a  very  active  research  role,    but  it  was  not  an 
action  that  withdrew    me  from   teaching.      I  was  able  to  develop  an 
advanced   graduate   course  in   plant   pathology   theory,   which   I 
enjoyed  and  felt   that   I   got  about   as  much   out   of    it  as   the 
students   did.      But  it   did  introduce  me  into  another   phase   of 
university   activity    and  administration  that  proved  to  be  valuable 
later  in  some   of    the   other  responsibilities   that   I  assumed. 


94 


Academic   Senate  Work;      Educational    Policy,    Personnel,    Planning 


Kendrick:     With   the  professorial    title  and  the  department   chairmanship. 
there  were  innumerable  opportunities  to  engage  in   senate 
activity.      By   that   time,    the  Riverside   campus  had  succeeded  in 
separating  itself  from   the   paternalism   of   the  UCLA  campus  and  was 
a   freestanding  division  of    the  Academic   Senate  in  iself.      Through 
this  time   period,    the   senates  on  the  various   campuses  had 
undergone   an  evolution  and   developed  into   separate   divisions. 

When  I  first  started  my  activity  in  this  area,    there  was   a 
northern  division  of    the   senate   and  a   southern   division  of    the 
senate.      The  Berkeley   campus  was   the  nucleus   of    the   northern 
division,    and  the  UCLA  campus  was   the  nucleus  of   the  southern 
division.      UCLA,    Irvine,    San  Diego,    Riverside,    and   Santa  Barbara 
were  part  of    that   southern  division,    and   the  rest  of   the  campus 
faculties  were   part  of   the  northern  division.      That  was  a 
necessary    first   step,    I   guess,    in  trying  to  organize   the   senate 
so   that  it   could  operate  with   some    degree   of    efficiency.      This 
organizational   structure  was  a  forerunner  to  the  Academic 
Assembly.      The  Assembly  was  established   to   bring  representatives 
from   all  divisions  and  University- wide   committees  into  a   single 
body,    so  that  a  forum   for  meeting  and  representing  the  entire 
faculty   of    the  University   of    California  in  matters  that  were 
appropriate    could  operate. 

Some  of   the  committees  on  which   I  participated  were 
educational  policy  and  course  approval   and  something  called 
physical   planning — I  was   a   natural    for  physical   planning  w  ith  all 
the   background   I  had  in   that  earlier   study.      I   did  not   serve    or. 
such   committees  as  welfare,    privilege   and  tenure,    or  any   of    that 
nature.      But   I  was  active  in  the   Committee   on   Committees' 
affairs.      My    CES    [Citrus  Experiment   Station]    colleagues  early 
determined  the  importance   of   that   committee  for  us  so  we  took  an 
interest   in  its  work.      I  had  much  help  among  some  colleagues, 
both  in  letters  and  science  as  well  as   the  experiment   station. 
Randy   Wedding,    whom   I  had  collaborated  with  in  the  cantaloupe 
crown  blight   study  and  some  other  research  in  the  field,    was   also 
interested  in  the  Academic  Senate   and  its  activities.      He  was  one 
of    my   most  ardent   colleagues   in   "senate-watching"   (let's    put   it 
that  way).      We   tried  to  make   sure  that  we  were  going  to  have 
proper  representation  on  the  Committee  on  Committees,    which  was 
an  elected  committee — 

Lage:  When  you  say   "we,"  do  you  mean — ? 

Kendrick:     Colleagues  in  the  experiment   station  is  what  I'm  really   saying. 

Lage:  What  motivated  your  interest  in  the  Academic  Senate? 


95 


Kendrick:      I    don't  really   know,   except   that   my   nature — I  have   always   been  a 
person  who   participated  in  the  organizations  in  which   I  was  a 
member.      One   of   the  things  that  motivated   my   interest  in  the 
senate  was   that  it  was  apparent  that  the  senate  was  involved  in 
the   personal   advancement  and  welfare   of    the  faculty.      I   felt   that 
if   the   senate  was   going  to  participate   to  that  extent  in  these 
matters   then  we  ought  to   be  a   part   of    that   process.      As    I've 
indicated,    since   the  Committee  on  Committees  was  the  unit  that 
appointed  the  memberships  of  the  various   committees,   we — we  being 
Randy   Wedding  and  Oliver  Johnston,    who  was  a  philosophy   colleague 
of  ours,    so  to  speak  from    the   other   camp,   and   some   other   allies 
and  friends   in  the  physical    and  social   sciences — we  determined  to 
influence  the  outcome   of  membership  on  the   Committee  on 
Committees.      By   and  large   the  faculty   does   not   participate  very 
actively   in   senate   programs.       That's    true   on  any    campus. 

Lage:  Except   in  times  of   crisis. 

Kendrick:      In  times  of    threats  and   crisis,    then  you  have   everybody    turning 

out.      But   there  aren't  very  many  such  occasions;    the    sixties   here 
in  Berkeley   was  a  dramatic  exception  to  my   statement  about 
faculty   disinterest.      But   the   senate,    nevertheless,    is    a 
significant   factor  in  the  development  of    the  University   of 
California,    and  that  becomes  obvious  if  you  know   what   the   senate 
organization  does.       I   figured  that's  where  I  wanted  to  spend  part 
of  my   time,    in  making  certain,    at  least,    that   if   things  happen,    I 
would  have   a  part  in  it,    or  an  opportunity    to  express  opposition 
to   some   of    the   things   that   I   took  exception   to. 

So  it  was   not  unusual   that  I  would  become  involved  because 
almost  in  all   organization  that  I   got  involved  in,    some  way   or 
other   I   found  myself  coming  to  the   top.      That's  one  way   of 
looking  at  it — 

Lage:  Doing  the  dirty   work  could  be   another  way   of   looking  at  it. 

[laughter] 

Kendrick:     Well,    I   guess   I've  always  enjoyed  being  a   part   of    the  decision- 
making  process,    let's  put  it  that  way.      I'm    not   totally 
acquiescent   in  having  somebody   else  make    up  my   mind  for  me. 

Some   of   those  activities  in  the   senate   gave  me  an 
opportunity   to  become  acquainted  with  other  campus  personnel   with 
similar  assignments  in  senate  activities.      I  recall   being  an 
early   alternate  representative  to  the  University-wide  Academic 
Senate  Educational   Policy   Committee,    and  that  exposed  me  to  other 
University    campus   people.      I  won't  mention  all   of    the  activities 
that    grew   out   of    those  early   senate  activities,   but   they  opened 
up   to  me    the  University's  activities   in  various  ways. 


96 


Kendrick:      One   of   the  most   significant   senate  activities   that    I   found   myself 
involved  in  was  on  the  Riverside  Budget  Committee,    as  it  was 
known  in  those   days.      It  had  virtually   nothing  to   do  with 
evaluating  the  budget,    but  was  an  academic  personnel    evaluation 
committee.      I  served  a   two-year   period  on   that  Budget   Committee, 
and  the  real   challenge   occurred  that  first  year  when  all   five  of 
us  were  new   appointees.      We  had  no  holdovers,    so  we  had   to 
construct   some  new    ground  rules  in  order  to  find  out  how    to 
operate  and  what  to  do.      Service  on  the  Budget   Committee  was  a 
real    eye-opener.      It's  in  that  kind  of   committee  that  you  begin 
to  see  life  in  its  raw    state,    and  not  in  its   glossed-cver    state. 
Because   when  you're   dealing  with  peoples'    future  and  their 
compensation,    true    characters   begin  to   show.      You  are  able   then 
also   to  see,    with  not  too  much   difficulty,    good  performances, 
bluffed  performances,    and  poor   performances. 

Lage :  How  were  you  evaluating  individuals?      Through  reports  of   their 

colleagues,    or  individual   observation,    or—-? 

Kendrick:      No,    this  was  a  typical   personnel   evaluation  committee   that  met 
and  commented  on  the  justification  for  advancement  or  merit 
increases,    as  well   as  the  decision  to  move  to  tenure.      There  were 
five   of   us,    representing  the  various  activities  on  the   campus.      I 
was  the  experiment   station  representative  to  all  intents  and 
purposes.     We  had  a  representative  each  from   the  humanities,    the 
physical   sciences,    the  social   sciences,    the  life  sciences  and 
CES. 

The  process   starts  by   going  through   the  roster  of   faculty, 
including  both  the  experiment   station  and  the   college, 
determining  those   people  who  are  eligible  for  conside ration,    and 
calling  notice  to  that  fact  to  their  department   chairs.     We  also 
required  the   chairs   to  begin  the   process  of    putting  together   the 
documentation  supporting  their  recommendation  if   they  were   going 
to  recommend  advancement,    and  putting  together  a  justification  of 
why   they  were  not   going  to  recommend  advancement,    if   that  was 
their  decision.      That  process  is  a  very    complicated  one   because 
the   chair  is  supposed  to  consult  among   the   senior  members   cf    the 
department,    and  together   they    make   an  evaluation.      The  chair  is 
free  to  make  independent   comments  in  addition.      The  routing  of 
the   comments  is   through   their  respective  deans,    and  the  deans 
must  also  make  a  recommendation  and  an  evaluation  of   the  material 
they    receive.      If   it's  a   recommendation  for   promotion,    it 
includes  all    the  published  work  and  evidence   of  activities,    both 
in  teaching,    in  public  service   and  in   university    service,    in 
which  the  individual   has   been  engaged  during   the    period   of    their 
employment  by   the  University. 

For  all   significant  advancements  and  promotions  an 
additional   step  was  employed.      We  identified   confidential   ad-hoc 
personnel    committees  which  were   appointed  by    the  vice    chancellor. 


97 


Kendrick:      These  ad-hoc  committees  received  all   the   documentation   concerning 
the  individual    candidates,    evaluated  it,    then  made   a  positive   or 
a  negative  recommendation.      This  information  was  then  returned   to 
the  Budget   Committee  for  another  independent  evaluation  of   all 
documentations  and  recommendations. 

The  Budget  Committee's  recommendation  was  then  directed  to 
the  academic  vice    chancellor  who  acted  on  the  information 
received  and  his  own  judgment.      The  academic  vice    chancellor  whom 
I  worked  with  was  Thomas  Jenkin,   who  had   been  a   dean  at  UCLA. 
He  is   now    deceased,    but  he  was  a  very  beloved  administrator  who 
came  to  Riverside  with  an  extensive   background  in  university 
service   and   competence   in  political    science,   which  was  his   field. 
He  was  with  Ivan  Hinderaker  at   the   time.      During  this   period   of 
activity    that    I've   described,     Ivan  Hinderaker  was  the   chancellor. 
He   succeeded  Herman  Spieth  as    chancellor   in  1964. 

Well,    we  got  through   that  first  year  of  Budget  Committee 
activities.      But  that  was  a   time-consuming  program;    even  though 
we  didn't  have   a  lot  of   cases  to   consider,    it  was  a   significant 
load  for  the   size   of    the    campus  and  the  amount   of   support  we  had. 
But   that  experience   provided,    as   I   said,    a  good  insight  into 
strengths  and  weaknesses  of  individuals  and   departments.      We 
passed  on  all   the  appointments,    the  level    of    appointments,    and 
advancements   to  tenure,    as  well   as   denials. 

As   I   indicated,    all   that  documentation  arrives  in  the  office 
of    the  vice   chancellor  for  academic   affairs,   and   then   they   sent 
it   to  the  Budget   Committee  for  review.      For  all  promotions,    as  I 
said  earlier,   we  nominated  an  ad-hoc  peer  review   committee  for 
each    individual    case,     usually   consisting  of    three   to  five   people. 
If  we   could  not   get   the   right  mix  of   professional   backgrounds  for 
a   candidate's   particular  field  locally,    we  went   to   the  faculties 
at  UCLA  or  San  Diego  or   some   other   campus  in  order   to   get    proper 
representation  on  the  committee,    so   that  we'd  have  somebody   on  it 
who   understood  what   the   candidate's  field  was   all   about.      Then 
that   committee  made  their  report  and  filed  it  with  the  Budget 
Committee. 

Lage:  In  the  comments  you  made  earlier  about  the  Budget  Committee  and 

'life  in  its   raw    state,"  there   seemed   to  be   a  lot   of   emotional 
content. 


Kendrick:      Well,    I   indicated  that  it  revealed  to  me  for  the  first  time 

individuals'    true    characters.       It   became   pretty   easy    to    determine 
when  a  weak  case  was  before  you  because  it  usually  was  full  of 
voluminous  extraneous  material. 

Lage:  This  would  have  been  material   put   forth  by    the  person's 

department? 


98 


Kendrick:      That's   correct. 

Lage:  Not  by   the  professor   himself. 

Kendrick:     No,    I   didn't  mean  to  imply    that   the  individual  was   the   source   of 
the   fluff   and  the  bluff.      Although    [laughs]    that   certainly 
exists.      But  at  all   levels,    and   particularly  at   the   department 
chair  and  the  dean's  levels,     it   became  fairly   easy    to  sort  out 
strong  cases  from  weak  cases.      Weak  cases  are  not  necessarily 
characterized  by   a  short  synopsis.      They   are  more  likely   to  be 
long  and  dreary  and  full   of   extraneous  references, 
overemphasizing  the  importance   of   certain  kinds  of   activities 
that  had  peripheral  relationships  with  academic  development.      It 
was  also  a  revelation  of  who  were  strong  chairs  and  who  were  weak 
chairs.      You  could  tell   by   the   kind   of    documentation  they  would 
let  go   through   their  hands  whether  or  not  you  were  dealing  with  a 
person  who  really  took  their  job  seriously  or  who  just   passed  it 
on  and  made   no  great  effort   to  spend  any   time  supporting  or 
exercising  any   independent    evaluation. 

It  also  displayed  another  personality   character  not 
necessarily  associated  only  with  university    people.      There  are 
more  people  than  not  who  really  wanted  to  pass  the  unpopular 
decisions  on  to  the  next  level  and  not  make  those   unpopular 
decisions  themselves,   where  it  should  be  made   in  the  first   place. 
So  we  would  be  handed  the   unhappy    circumstances   of    denying 
promotions  in  cases  where   the  department   chair  or  even  a   dean  had 
said,    "I   think   this  is   a  worthy    case,    and   I  recommend  it." 

Lage:  Probably  knowing  full  well   it  was  full   of   fluff. 

Kendrick:      Knowing  that  the  Budget   Committee  and  the  academic  vice 

chancellor  would  ultimately   have  to  come  to  grips  with  it. 

The   second  year  of   my  Budget   Committee  work,    I    chaired   the 
Budget   Committee,    so  it  became  my   responsibility   to  organize  and 
see   that   things   ran  smoothly.      Things   ran  a  little   smoother   the 
second  year  because  we  had  some  holdover  members  and  some 
experience  in  the   process   that  we  had   gotten  into  place  in  the 
first  year.      But   it  just   reinforced  my   point  of  view   of   academic 
evaluation.     That  experience  was  invaluable  for  my  subsequent 
assignment  as   the  vice   president   because   I  could  understand  where 
the  faculty  was   coming  from  and  how   strong  administrators  ought 
to  operate.      As  I'll  get  into  a  little  bit  later,    I  spent  most  of 
my  vice   presidency  trying  to  introduce  a  similar  academic 
evaluation  system   into   Cooperative  Extension.      I   think   I 
succeeded,    but  it  was  a  long  tough  pull.      We'll    get  into  that  a 
little  bit  later,   but   the  experience    I   had  at  Riverside   with 
academic  evaluation  for  faculty   I   thought  was  valuable  enough  to 
try   and  introduce   to   Cooperative  Extension  so   that  it  would  take 
out   the  arbitrariness   of   administrative    decision-making. 


99 


Statewide   Senate    Involvement 


Kendrick:      My  Budget  Committee   service  exposed  me  to  university-wide  budget 
and  personnel    committees.      I  became  acquainted  with  other  budget 
committee   chairs  from   other   campuses.      As   chair   of  your   division 
budget  committee,    you  were  an  ex-officio  member  of   the  statewide 
budget   committee  where  we   considered  broader  issues  of  public 
policy.      I   remember  one   of    the  nagging  issues  that  we  had  to 
consider  as  a  university-wide   committee  was  whether  or  not  to 
approve   the   inauguration  of   a  special    salary    scale  for  lawyers. 
That  was   sort   of    the  first   chink  in  the  armor,    so  to   speak,    of 
standardized  professorial    salaries,    irrespective   of    the 
discipline.      The  lawyers  were   chafing  at   the   bit   because   they 
felt   that   they   were  being  disadvantaged  monetarily  and  were  not 
able   to  hire  qualified   people  at   the  level    of   university 
salaries.      There  was  long  and  arduous   debate  in  this   university- 
wide  budget   committee  on  whether  or  not  it  was   good  for   the 
university    to  recognize   special   needs   as  far  as   salary    for 
special   disciplines  was   concerned.      We  had  most  law   school    deans 
come   and  testify   before   us   and  try    to  persuade    us   to  approve  the 
special    salary  scale  and  as    I  recall,    we    ultimately   agreed   that 
perhaps   they    had  a    case. 

Lage:  Reluctantly,    I'm  sure. 

Kendrick:      It  was  very   reluctant   because  it  was  most  difficult  for  faculty 
from,    particularly,    letters  and  science  and   the   nonprofessional 
disciplines   to  understand  why  a  professor  of  law   was  any   more 
valuable  to   the  institution  than  a   professor   of   classics.      And   it 
was   really  a  hard  swallow   to  recognize  that  if  we  wanted  a 
competent  legal  faculty,   we  had  to   compete  with  the  outside  world 
for   that   competence   and  not  just   the  internal   academic  world. 

Well,    it  wasn't  long  before   physicians  were   on  our   tail,    of 
course.       To    some  extent,    they   already    had  a   special    salary    scale. 
I'm   not   going  to   dwell   on  this  long,    but   the   thing  that   I 
remember  about   that  early  exposure  was  the  fundamental   difference 
between  the   physicians  and  the  lawyers.      The  lawyers  ignored   the 
professional    ranks  of    the  faculty   because   they   attached  less 
significance   to  rank   than  they   did  money.      As   a  matter   of   fact, 
they    appointed  all   new    faculty   as  acting  professors.      They   didn't 
appoint  them  acting  assistant   professors   or  acting  associate 
professors,    they   were  acting  professors.      The  way   they   achieved 
tenure  was  to  remove  the  acting  after   three   to  four  years,    and 
then  they   became  a  professor   at   this   rather  enhanced  salary 
level. 

As  far  as  the  physicians  were  concerned,  they  wouldn't  have 
anything  to  do  with  that  concept.  They  weren't  going  to  appoint 
anybody  as  an  acting  professor  of  medicine;  they  had  to  start 


100 


Kendrick:      back  down  at  the  assistant   professor  level    [laughter]    and  jump 
through   the  hoops,    and  advance   through   the  regular  academic 
ladder.      On  the   other  hand   they    didn't   mind    paying  an  acting 
assistant  professor   three  times  what  a  regular  faculty   professor 
might  be   getting.      Money  was   the  most    significant  factor   to   the 
physicians,    but   they    held  very   tightly   to   the  notion  that   they 
didn't  want  to   disregard   the   ranks   in   the    professorial    series. 
That  was  an  interesting  revelation  of   points  of  view    from   two 
significant   professions  within  our   institution. 


The  Academic  Council 


Kendrick:      The  next   step  in  my   administrative  education  occurred  through  a 
lucky   serendipitous  act   by   the   university-wide  Academic   Senate's 
Committee  on  Committees. 

I  recall    that  Randy   Wedding  was  the  Riverside   representative 
to  the  university-wide   Committee  on  Committees  about  1966.      Ke 
called  me  from    a  meeting  that  they   were  having.      I  was  ir. 
Monterey  at  a  professional   plant   pathology   meeting,    and  he    called 
me   to  see  if   I  would  be  willing  to  accept  an  appointment  as  a 
member  of  the  Academic  Council. 

I  knew    a  bit  of   what  the  Academic  Council  was  all   about, 
because  from   my  various  activities   I  had  become  aware   that   they 
sat  as   the  hierarchy   of    the  Senate.      I   said,    "Well,    what  does   it 
entail?"     Ultimately,     I    said,    "Yes,     I'll    accept   that."     So  in 
1966,    I  joined  the   council,    and  in  1967,    with  Professor  Rcbley 
Williams  from   the  Berkeley   campus  as   the   chair,    I   became  vice 
chair  of    the  Academic   Council.      The  officers  of    the  council    are 
also   the   officers   of    the  Academic  Assembly.      So   the    chair  and   the 
vice    chair  are  also   the  chair  and  the  vice   chair  of    the  assembly. 

Lage:  Is   the   council   a   smaller   component   of    the  assembly? 

Kendrick:      The   council    is   composed  of — I  don't   think  this   is  exactly 
correct — but  its  membership  is   composed  of   chairs   of    the 
significant  Academic  Senate  university-wide   committees,    such   as 
educational   policy,   welfare,    budget,    and   graduate    affairs,    as 
well   as  the  division  chairs  of    the  campus  Academic  Senates. 
There   are   nine    divisions,   and   they   each  operate  with   a  local 
chairman.      Those   nine  people  are  automatically   members  of   the 
council. 

So   the   council    is  about   fifteen  people,    with   the   chair  and 
the  vice  chair  not  representing  any   one   of    the   committees   or   the 
divisions. 


101 


Lage:  Now,   what  is   the    council's  responsibility? 

Kendrick:  The  council  rieets  monthly.  It's  really  the  evaluator  and 
commentator  on  senate  matters  that  must  have  total  senate 
attention. 

Lage:  Do   they  work  with   the  president? 

Kendrick:      They  work  with   the   president.      It's   the  major   contact   that   the 
President's  Office   has  with  the  senate.      The  chair  and  the  vice 
chair  attend   all  Regents'   meetings,    and  have   the   privilege    of 
sitting   at   the  Regents'    table,    but    they    do   not  vote.      They're   not 
faculty  Regents,    but  they  are   given  the   privilege   of   commenting 
any    time   on  any   subject  and  they   participate  in  all  open  and 
closed  and  executive   session  meetings.      The   students    chose   to   go 
the  other  route.      They   wanted  a   student  Regent.      The  faculty 
decided   that   they   really   didn't  want   to   be   placed  in  a   position 
of   having  a   single  person  represent   total    faculty   point  of  view 
[as   a  member   of    the  Board   of  Regents],    realizing  that   that's   a 
very    difficult   thing   to  do.       So   they   chose   the  other  alternative, 
and  that  was  to  participate  in  all   discussions,    without  feeling 
that   they   had  to  vote.      I   think  it  was  a  wise   decision,    and  I 
think  it's   been  a  helpful    decision  as  far  as   the  Regents  were 
concerned. 

Well,    that  was  another  step  in  my   exposure  to  University 
life.      The   chair  and   the  vice   chair   of    the  Academic   Council    also 
participate   in   defending  the  University's   budget  in  Sacramento  in 
the  spring,    when  the  subject  matter  happens   to  be   a  faculty 
topic,    such   as   salary   or   teaching  load.      There  are  a  surprising 
number   of   interesting  topics   that   the  legislature   gets  into,   and 
the   chair  of    the  Academic  Council   usually   dedicates  the  entire 
year  to  being  chair.      Because   during  that   spring,    you   could  find 
yourself   tootling  up  to  Sacramento  four   days  a  week  for  about   six 
to  eight  weeks   during   the  University's   legislative   budget 
hearings. 

Lage:  This   takes  you  out   of    teaching  and  research. 

Kendrick:      They're   provided  with  relief   to   do   so. 

That  was   not  the  case  when  I  was  the  vice   chair  and  Robley 
was   the   chair.      The  involvement  had  not   developed  to   that  extent 
at   that   time.       I'm   describing  the  chair  and  the  vice   chair  in 
more  recent  years  as  we've   gotten  into  more   complicated 
relationships  with   the  legislature.      But   the  chair  and  the  vice 
chair  were  expected   to   participate  in  a  lot   of  administrative, 
system-wide   committees,    one  of  which  was   called  the  Building  and 
Campus  Development   Committee,    chaired  by  Harry  Wellmaru      This 
committee  went  from   campus  to  campus  to  listen  to  the  plea  for 
augmenting  the  budget  for  physical   plant   development,    as  well   as 


102 


Kendrick:      academic  program   development.      It  was  sort  of   a   traveling  road 
show   composed  of   a  number  of   administrators,    plus  the  Academic 
Council   Representation — usually  Robley  and  me — although  we 
attempted  to  divide    up  the  workload,    and  I  would  go   to  some  and 
he  would   go  to  others.      But   that  was   the  first  regular  assignment 
that   put   me   in  touch  with  the  president,    but  more  particularly 
with  the  vice   president,   who  happened  to  be  Harry  Wellman  at   the 
time. 

In  1967-68,    that  Academic  Council    that   I  was  a  part  of  was  a 
very   interesting  council.      Randy  Wedding  really   caught   the 
Committee  on  Committees  without  having  done  their  homework,    and 
so  when  it   came  time  to   consider   chairs   of  various   kinds   of 
committees   that  the  university-wide   senate  was  engaged  in,    he  had 
a   candidate  for  each.      Some   of    the  other   campuses   didn't.      So  we 
wound  up  that  year  with  about  five  members  from   Riverside   on  the 
Academic   Council.      This    council    that  was  representing   the  entire 
University   of   California,    had  more  than  its  share  of   members 
including  the   chair  of   the   graduate   council  and  several   other 
representatives   from    Riverside — I'll  have   to  dig  out  an  old 
picture  of   that   council   in  order  to  remember  just  how   many   and 
who  they   were.      But   I  do  remember  Bob  Gleckner  was  on  it,    and 
George  Zentmyer  was  on  it,    I  was  on  it.      Someone  else   also. 

The  other   thing  of    interest  about   that   council   was  that  Bill 
[William  J.]    McGill,    from  San  Diego  was  representing  his    division 
in  San  Diego,    and  Frank    [Francis]    Sooy    was  on  it  from    San 
Francisco.      Subsequently — I'm   going  to  jump  ahead  a  little — but 
subsequently   President   Charlie  Hitch  ruined  that  particular 
council  by  selecting  me  to  be  the  vice   president  Agricultural 
Sciences,    a  little  later  Bill   McGill   as   chancellor  at  the  San 
Diego   campus,    and,    finally,    Frank  Sooy   as   chancellor   of    the   San 
Francisco   campus.      So  it  proved  to  be  quite  a  fertile   ground  for 
future  administrators.      With  my  former   colleagues  on   the    council 
occupying  significant  administrative   positions   I   felt  that  I  w  as 
greatly  advantaged  early  on  in  my  relationships  with  most   of    the 
campus    chancellors. 

• 

The  experience   on  the  council   and  its  subsequent  linkage    to 
the  system-wide  administrative  assignments  gave  me  some 
appreciation  and  flavor  of  what  the  individual   campus 
administrations  were  all  about.      I  have  always   said  that   if   one 
had  set  out   to  design  a   training  course  for  an  administrator  who 
ultimately  was  going  to  have  some   system-wide  responsibilities — 
such   as   the  vice    president   for  agricultural    sciences — I   couldn't 
have  been  better  trained.      Coming  up   through   the  whole   system 
with   exposure   to  physical   development,    budget  development, 
academic  development,    and  campus  review    of   different   units   of    the 
university    were  important   training  activities.      I   had  experienced 
the   growth  and  development  of   Davis   through   the   eyes   of   my   father 
and  observed  the  evolution  of    the  Davis  relationship  with 


103 


Kendrick  :      Berkeley.      Then   I  experienced  again   myself   a   the   similar 

evolution  of    a   relatively   small  experiment   station  at  Riverside 
undergoing   the  introduction  of   instruction  and   graduate 
development  at   that  institution  and  our   ultimate  separation  from 
UCLA's   oversight   of   Riverside's    development — emerging,     so   to 
speak,    from    adolescence   to  adulthood.      So   I  think  it  was  a   unique 
and  invaluable  experience   to   start   off  as   a  vice   president  with 
that  background.      In   spite  of    this  when  I  arrived  in  Berkeley   as 
a  vice   president,    I   didn't  really   know   what   I  was    getting   into. 


Organization  of    the  Statewide   Agricultural   Unit 


Lage  :  As  you  went   through   these  various   steps,    did  you  begin  to  have  in 

your  mind   that  you'd  like   to  move  more  into  administration? 

Kendrick:      No,    I   really   didn't.      I  w  as  really   doing  what   came  next.      I  was 
aware  that  we  had  a   system-wide  administrative  unit  in 
agriculture.      I  knew   that  Harry  Wellman  had  emerged  from    that 
role  into   the   university's  vice   presidency   role  and  was    a  very 
significant  administrator  not  only   for  agriculture,   but  for 
campus   developments,    as   President   dark  Kerr's   right-hand   person 
in  the   expansion  of    the  university's   physical    and  academic 
offerings. 

Paul    Sharp  was  the  first  free-standing  director  of   the 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station.      He  was  appointed  by  Wellman,    as 
I  recall.      He   traveled  around  and  visited  the  campuses,    and  we 
used  to  turn  out  like   good  soldiers  and   "let   the   captain  review 
his  troops"  when  he  would  show    up.      But   I  was  not  really  aware 
that  any   of  his  actions  had  any   really    significant  influence   on 
what   I  was  doing  at  the  time  or  what  we  were  doing  at  the 
experiment    station. 

We  became  a  bit  more  aware  of   the  university-wide 
administration  when  Dan  Aldrich  moved  from  his   chairman  of   the 
soils   department  at  Davis  into  what  was  then  called  the 
University   dean  for  agriculture.       In   Al  Boyce's   autobiography   he 
was  mistaken  in  indicating  that  Aldrich  occupied  the  resurrection 
of   the   title.      Harry  Wellman  was   the  vice   president  for 
Agricultural    Sciences,    and  when  he  moved  out   of    that  role,    the 
title  was   changed  to  University   dean  of   agriculture.      And  at   that 
time,    the  University   dean  of    agriculture  really   functioned  as  a 
dean  because  all    the    courses  and  curricula   that  were   developed   by 
the   respective    colleges  had  to  have   the  dean's  approval,    had  to 
have  Aldrich's   approval. 


10A 


Kendrick:      There  was  also  a  University   dean   of   extension  at   the   time,    so 

there  were   two  University    deans.      It  made   a  little  more  sense  for 
University  Extension  to  have  a    centralized   dean  because   there 
really   were  opportunities  for  him   to  be   concerned  about   the 
curricula   they  were    offering. 

Aldrich  also,    to  some  extent,    participated  in  determining 
department  chairs  and  new   appointments.      I  remember  when 
Hutchison  was  the  dean,    he  was  involved  in  every  aspect  of 
appointment,    promotion,   and  department   chair   designation.      But  it 
became  increasingly   difficult   to  operate  as  a  dean  with  no 
resident  faculty  and  no  resident   students  from   University   Hall. 
And  that   title  became   somewhat  obsolete.      But   nevertheless  it 
continued  to  exist   during  Dan  Aldrich's   tenure,    and   it    also 
existed   during  Maurice    Peterson's  tenure.      He  had  been  brought  to 
University  Hall,    I  think  by   Dan,    to  be  the   director   of    the 
experiment   station,    succeeding  Paul    Sharp.      He   operated  in  that 
capacity  early  on   until   Dan  Aldrich  was  appointed   chancellor   of 
the   Irvine   campus. 

So  Peterson,    an  agronomist   from   Davis,    succeeded  Dan  about 
1963    or  '64  as   the  University    dean  for  agriculture.      He,     in    due 
course,    brought  Clarence  Kelly,    an  agricultural    engineer,    down 
from  Davis,    to  be  the   director  of    the  experiment   station,   and  the 
two  of    them   functioned  for  some  time  as  University   dean  and 
director,     respectively. 

I  became  a  bit  more  aware  of   the  university-wide  function 
under  that   particular  regime,    although   I  followed  Dan  just 
because  we  were   close   friends.      Then  when  I  was   department   chair, 
I  would  see  a  little  more  of   the   university-wide  administrative 
unit   in  agriculture   than  the  ordinary   participant  would. 

When  Pete  resigned  as  the  University  dean  of  agriculture  in 
the  early  fall  of  1967,  Kelly  was  asked  to  perform  both  director 
and  dean  functions.  Those  of  us  in  the  south  sort  of  lost  track 
of  the  fact  that  we  even  had  a  University  dean. 

I  am  really  answering  the  question   that  you   raised   of 
whether,    having  participated  in  these   other  activities,    did  I 
develop  an  urge  for  administrative  work.      At  the   time,    we   knew 
that  Al  Boyce  was   going  to  reach   retirement  age   as  director  and 
dean  of    the   College  of  Agricultural   Sciences  at  Riverside.      I  had 
been  chair  of    the  department  for  five  years,    and  I   really   had  a 
lot  of   interest  in  how   Riverside  was   to  be   developed.     At   that 
point,   while  I  was  not  aspiring  to  be   the  dean,    I  felt  that   I 
ought  to  be   considered  strongly  for   that  role,    given  all    of    the 
other   stuff   that   I   had  done   at  Riverside   and  my    interest  in  its 
development.      There  was  a   period  when  I  was  a   bit   disappointed 
that   I   didn1':  detect  any   activity    jr  interest  in  my   being  dear. 
down   there   other   than  an  occasional   reference   to  it.      So   I  was 


105 


Kendrick:      somewhat  frustrated,    not  realizing  j  ust  how    that  was    going  to   go. 
I   was   interested  in  who  might  be   dean,    if   it  were  not  to  come  my 
way.      It  wasn't  a   position   that   I  aspired   to,    but  it  was   a  little 
bit  like    I   had  felt  about   the  chairmanship  of    the  department.      I 
had  enough   confidence  in  my  own  ability    that    I   felt   that    I  was 
competent   to  handle   the  position,    at  least  as  much  as  my 
colleagues,    if  not  more  than  most  of   them.      And   I  felt   somewhat 
similar  about   the  deanship;    I   felt   that  if    I  weren't   given  at 
least  a  chance  to  be  interviewed  for  it  to   give   some  ideas  about 
where   I  thought  the  college   ought  to  go  that  that  was  an 
oversight. 

Well,    as   it   turned  out,    the  chancellor  and  Harry   Wellman  had 
other  ideas  about   my   future,    and  I   didn't   know   about   them.      That 
explains  a  little  the  lack  of    talking  to  me  about  the  deanship,    I 
think.       I'm  just    guessing,    because  it's  never   been  revealed   to  me 
just  what  was   going  on  in  that   time.      But   I  had  sort  of   lost 
track  of  the  fact   that   there  was   a  vacancy   in  the   university    dean 
position,    and  furthermore  I  was  not  a  highly  ranked  administrator 
nor  an  obvious   candidate  for  a   university-wide  administrative 
responsibil ity . 

Lage:  It  was  a   big  jump. 

Kendrick:     And  to  jump  from  a  department  chair  to  a  vice  presidency  was 

nothing   that   I    contemplated.      I   thought   that  a   natural    evolution 
for   that  sort  of    thing  would  be   to  take   on  the  next  larger  unit, 
and  that  in  my   case  would  be  a   college  administration  of   some 
kind.      So  we'll  leave  it  at  that. 

Lage:  That's  a   good  place  to  stop. 


106 


V      PLANT   PATHOLOGY  DURING   YEARS  OF  CHANGE  AT  RIVERSIDE 

A  Collection  of   Specialties 

[Date  of    interview:      September  28.    1987]    //# 

Lage:  We  were   going  to  start  out  today   talking  about   the   plant   patho 

logy   department  at  Riverside   and  how   you  built   up  the  faculty. 

Kendrick:      All   right.      The  Department  of   Plant   Pathology  at  Riverside  was 
kind  of   a  traditionally   constructed  department,    as  were  the 
departments  of   plant   pathology  at  Berkeley  and  Davis.     What   I 
mean  by   that  is  that  the  personnel  were  traditionally  trained 
plant  pa thlo gists  who  had   gone  to   graduate  schools  in  various 
universities  of   the  United  States  and  had  degrees  in  plant 
pathology.      Plant   pathology  is  a   profession,    as   I  have 
maintained,    that  is   not  a  pure  science.      By  that   I  mean  that  it 
isn't  narrowly  focused  like  a   chemistry   department,    which  is   all 
chemistry,    or  a  physics  department,    which  is  all  physics — 
realizing,    of   course,    that   there  are  various  aspects   of   those 
fundamental   sciences  that  make   them  quite  diverse  too. 

But  plant  pathology  really  is  an  amalgamation  of   a  number  of 
microbiological   departments  that  deal   with  the  infectious  nature 
of    the   organism   on  a  host   plant.      So  that  it's  a   profession   that 
deals  with  the  interaction  of   parasites  and  biological   organisms 
which  host  them   producing  some  kind  of  adverse  event  as  far  as 
the   plant   host   is   concerned. 

So  in  the  early  days,    plant   pathologists   studied  the 
reaction  of   plants   to  these  external   organisms  and  tried  to 
prevent   their  adverse   consequences.      But   as    I've   already 
indicated,    one  of  the  adverse  effects  we  noticed  early  on  was  air 
pollution,    and   that's  not  an  organism,    that's  a   chemical    that 
causes  a   plant  reaction  which  is  plant   damaging.      There  are   other 
kinds  of   chemicals  that  are  either  administered  to  a  plant  in 
excess  or  they   show   up  being  deficient,    which  also   produces  a 
plant   that  looks   sick  or  not  normal. 


107 


Kendrick:      So  plant   pathology   is  really  a   collection  of   specialties  whose 

common  thread  is  that  you  deal   with  a  plant  that  looks  sick  or  at 
least   does   not  look  normal.      As  long  as  you're    studying   the    plant 
itself   in  these   situations,    it's   understandable  why  you  would  add 
to  your  faculty    people   trained  mainly   in   plant   pathology.     As  we 
got  into   studying  more  and  more  of   the  whys  and  wherefores  of 
these  adverse  reactions  to  plants,    it   became   evident   that  we 
really  needed  to  have   people  in  the  department  trained  in  some  of 
these  more  narrowly   defined  specialties,    so   that  instead   of    their 
focus   being  directed  to  the  plant  they   would  pay  primary 
attention  to  the   organism   or   the   event   that  led  up  to  those 
adverse    associations   in   plants. 

So  that  was  the  beginning  of   breaking  out  of   the  mold  of 
looking  for  new   faculty  members  only  in  departments  of    plant 
pathology.      We  wanted  to  add  chemists,    microbiologists,    and  plant 
biochemists   to  our   plant   pathology   staff.      This,    I  would   say, 
came  into   prominent   consideration  during  the  late  fifties. 

Lage:  Was   this  a   trend  nationwide? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      It  was  kind  of    a  trend  nationwide. 

Lage:  It  wasn' t  a   controversial   issue  at  Riverside,    then? 

Kendrick:     No.      One   of    the  first   people   to  promote   this   notion  was  Director 
Al  Boyce.      Al  was  an  entomologist   dealing  with  insecticide 
applications  to  control    insects.      He   early   on  saw    the  necessity 
to  build  up   data  on  the   chemistry   of    the  insecticide  residues, 
and  he   sought   to  add  chemists  to  the  Department  of  Entomology,    so 
they   developed  a  residue   chemistry   section.      He  ran  into   a  little 
controversy   with   the  Department  of  Agricultural   Chemistry    in  the 
early   days,    because  they  felt   that   the   chemistry  associated  with 
pesticide   application  should  be   done   in  the  Department  of 
Agricultural   Chemistry;  why  put  a   chemist  in  the  Department   of 
Entomology? 

Al   ultimately   prevailed  and  added  a  chemistry   section  in  the 
Department  of  Entomology,    which  became  quite  renowned  and  famous. 
He   also  added  a   section  on  the  toxicology   of    insecticides,    and 
that  was  oriented  heavily  to   biochemistry.      We  had   a  fungicide 
section  in  the  Department   of    Plant  Pathology,    and  we  saw    a  need 
to  have  our  chemistry   section  also,    that  is,    Middleton  and   some 
of    the  rest   of   us   saw    the  need.      So  we   sought  a  chemist  to  add  to 
the   department  in  the  mid-fifties,    I  think  it  was,   when  we  were 
dealing  with   a  problem    of    citrus — postharvest   decay   of   the  citrus 
fruit.      We  needed  to  understand   the    chemistry   involved  with   the 
fungicides   and   the  residues  that  might  be   present   on  the  fruits. 


108 


Kendrick:      So  the  first   breakthrough  as   far  as  adding  faculty   members 

outside   the  tradition  of   plant   pathology   came  from    the  chemistry 
group  in  Entomology  when  a   chemist.    Marty    [Martin]   Kolbezen 
transferred  to  our   department   to  work  as  a  chemist  in  our 
postharvest    decay    program. 


Lage  : 


It    sounds   as  if   there  was  a  lot  of    team  work.      Is   that   correct? 


Kendrick:     Well,    that's  right.      When  you  begin  to  branch  out.    then  you  need 
to  form   teams  of    research  efforts  and  not  place  all  the  responsi 
bility  on  one   person.      You  must  have  leaders  of   the  team,    but  it 
becomes  a  collaborative  effort.      It  was  easier   to  build   collabor 
ation  teams  when  the  members  from   these  allied  professions  were 
members  of  your  own  department,    rather  than  a  member  of   another 
department  where  they  have   different   allegiences  and   different 
motivations   in   getting  their  academic  work  done. 


Adding  Specialists   to   the   Department's   Faculty 


Kendrick:      With  that  emphasis,    then  we  began  thinking  about   the   physiology 
of   disease,    and  the  microbiology   of    the  organisms,    and  the 
emphasis   of    the  interaction  of    the   organism  and  its  host.     John 
Middleton  and  I,    with  agreement  of   the  other  members  of   our 
departments,    sought  to  add  a  man  by   the  name   of   Solomon 
Bartnicki-Garcia.      Dr.    Bartnicki  was  occupying  a   postdoctoral 
position  at  Rutgers  University   at   the   time,    working  in  Dr. 
Waksman's  laboratory.      Waksman  was  a  famous  microbiologist,    who 
discovered   some   of    the  antibiotics   that  are  in   common   use.      Dr. 
Bartnicki-Garcia  seemed  to  be   an  outstanding  candidate  to  study 
the  microbiology   of   some  of   the   organisms  that  we  were   concerned 
with,    and  we  invited  him  to  join  the  department. 

That  was  really   the  first  instance  when  we  began  to   go  into 
the  microbiology   studies  with  the  emphasis  on  the  organism — the 
study   of   the  organism — with  a  specialist  who  had  been  trained  in 
the  biochemistry   and  biology   of    the  organism,    rather   than  in  the 
more    generalized    training   of    plant    pathology.      I    don't    think   Dr. 
Bartnicki-Garcia  had  had  any    training  in  plant   pathology   per  se. 
Dr.  Bartnicki  was  a   native   of    Mexico,   and   I   struggled   to   get  him 
off   of    student  visa   status   into  a   regular  immigration   status. 
There  was  a  lot  of  activity  associated  with  making  him   a  legal 
immigrant   rather   than  an  illegal    alien.      As  a  result  of   much 
maneuvering  and  pleading  and  special   contact  with  Immigration 
Service,    we  finally  arranged  to  have  him  enter  the  country 
legally  with  a  visa  that  had  no   termination   date,    by   going  back 
to  Tijuana  and   coming  back  through    the  border   in  this  different 
status.      You  never  know   as  a   department   chair  what   sort   of 
problems  you're  going  to  have   to  deal   with. 


109 


Kendrick:      Anyway,    Solomon  appeared  to  be  quite  an  interesting  addition  to 
the  department,    he  was  very   sharp  and  he  brought  a  different 
dimension   of    thinking  to   the   group.      He   also  was   a  little 
irreverant   of    the  older  people  in  the  department.      So  it   took  a 
little   doing  to   get  him    settled  in,    but   I  have   always  had  a   great 
fondness  for  what  he  added  to  the  department — embarking  on  this 
rather  broadened  approach   to   plant    pathology. 

In  the  course   of    adding  competence   in  our  chemistry   section 
in  the   department,   we  added  a   person  to   the   department   by    the 
name   of  Bill   Moj  e   (now   deceased),   who  came  to  us   from   the 
Department  of   Chemistry  at  UCF.      His  specialty  was   dealing  with 
the   chemistry   of   natural    products.      We  felt  that  it  was  necessary 
to  have  an   understanding  of  what   the   potential   antibiotic 
capacity   of    these   natural   products  were,    as  well  as  an 
understanding  of   potential   resistance  in  natural    products   through 
their  own  chemical   barriers  to  infection. 

Lage:  You're   going  to  have   to  tell   me  what  you  mean  by   natural 

products. 

Kendrick:      Well,    a  natural   product   is — well,    let's  just  take   the  orange   and 
the  orange   peel.      If  you  tear  apart  the   orange   peel  and  study    the 
chemistry   of    the  volatiles,    the  vapors  you  smell,    or   the  juice 
you  squeeze  out — that's  natural    product    chemistry.      Natural 
product   chemistry    is   the  study   of    the  chemistry   of   the  banana 
peel,    or   of    the   banana  itself,    or   the   orange,    or   the   orange    peel, 
or   the  grapefruit,    or   the  grapefruit  peel,    or   the  roots  or   the 
leaves   of   plants,    for  example.       It's  not  a   study    of    the    chemicals 
per  se. 

Natural   product   chemicals  have  a  lot  of   appeal    in  use  to 
control    the   bad   bugs   because   they   are   naturally   occurring  in  the 
fruits   and  vegetables   of    plants   in  the  first   place.      They're  not 
additives,    and   therefore   they    don't   come   under   the    category    cf 
additives,    fungicides,    or  pesticides.      They    are  more  acceptable 
by    the    general   public   because   they    do  occur  naturally.       The 
problem    is   that   there  are   some  very   deadly  natural   product 
chemicals.      Just   because   they   occur   naturally   does  not 
necessarily   make   them    any   safer.      That's  why  you  have   chemists 
who  are  natural-product   chemists,   who  begin  to  unravel    all    that 
kind  of    stuff   so  we   can  understand  what  we're  dealing  with. 

Lage:  It  sounds  as  if  you  were   concerned  early   on  with   something   that 

became   popular  much  later. 

Kendrick:     Well,    I   don't  want   to   take   too  much   credit  for   this  move,    because 
similar   changes  were  occurring  in  the  outstanding  departments   of 
plant   pathology    in  the  U.S. 


110 


Lage:  It  seemed  like  a  new    concern  later  on,    in  the  late    sixties  and 

seventies. 

Kendrick:      Correct.      But  in  the  late  fifties,    we  were  already   adding  that 
kind  of   competence  to  our  Department  of   Plant   Pathology. 

We  were  also  interested  in  the  biochemistry   of  viruses,    and 
so  we  added  to  our   department   a  young  man  by    the   name   of   Dr. 
Semancik,   who.    while  trained  as  a  plant  pathologist,    had  his 
background  pretty  much  in  the  biochemistry   of  virology.      In  other 
words,    he  was   studying  the  virus  itself  rather   than  the 
interaction.      And  as  you   can   detect  in  what   I'm    describing — we 
were  adding  to  our  department   people  who  tended  to  emphasize   the 
cause  rather  than  the  result  of   plant  infection,   and   these   new 
members  were   skilled  and  trained  in  studying  the  nature  of    the 
causal    organism.      We  were   probably,    unbeknownst   to   us,    backing 
away    from   control.      We  felt   that  if  we  could  understand  the  cause 
better,   we  might  be  able   to   devise   the    control — 

Lage:  So  it   seems  like   a  less  immediately  practical    focus. 

Kendrick:      That's  very   true.      Well,    as   it's  now    known  and  now    described,    we 
were  strengthening  the  basic  research   aspect  of   plant   pathology, 
somewhat  at  the  expense  of  the  applied  research,   which  would  have 
more  emphasis  on  the   controlling  part  of   plant   pathology    studies. 

Lage:  Was  this  change  influenced  by   the  beginning  of    the  teaching 

function  also,    or  was  it  a   separate  trend? 

Kendrick:     No,    I  would   say   teaching  had  very  little  to   do  with  it.      It  was 
more  influenced  by    the  feeling  of  a  few   of   us  who  were  fairly 
senior  in  the  department  that  what  we  were  doing  previously  was 
emphasizing  stop-gap   control    measures.      They    weren't  lasting  and 
they  weren't   based  upon  any   fundamental    information.     We   felt 
that,    in  fact,    this  move  would  lead  to  a  more  consistent   control 
of   the  diseases  that  we  were    concerned  with. 

This  reemphasis  began  with  Middleton  and  I   followed  on — John 
and  I  did  a  lot  of   consulting  together — Dr.    Zentmyer,    of   course, 
was   part  of    this   strategy   group  and  subsequently  he  was  the 
department  chairman  after  I  left.      But   there  was  no  real 
resistance   in  the  department   to  this  move,    and  the  departments  at 
Davis  and  Berkeley  were  moving  somewhat  in  the    same    direction. 
We  could  also   see   that  the  departments  in  Wisconsin  and  Cornell 
had  both  moved  in   this    general    direction,    so  we  weren't  as    unique 
in  this  as  it  appeared  locally.     We  probably   had  more  pure 
chemistry  in  our  department  at  Riverside   than   they   had  in  some   of 
those   other  departments,    however. 


Ill 


Kendrick:      With  the  addition  of  Semancik,    the   study   of  virology   and  the 

study   of    the  viruses  itself   took  a  big  spurt,    and  moved  forward 
in  good  order.      The  last  appointment   I  made  which  added   a 
broadened   dimension  of    research   in  the  department  was  Noel  Keen, 
who  came  from  Wisconsin.      He  was  trained  as  a   plant   pathologist, 
but  his  emphasis  was  on  the  physiology   of   disease,    strongly 
oriented  towards  the  laboratory   study   of  what  is    going  on  in  the 
plant  when  infected  by   an  organism.      He   studied  the  physiological 
changes   that  occur  inside   the   plant   during  the    courses   of   infec 
tion  and  subsequent   disease   development.      So  that  added  another 
competence   to  this    group   of    chemists,    biochemists  and  virologists. 


Trend  Toward  Over- Specialization;   Need  for  Redefinition  of    the 
Field 


Kendrick:     By   1968,    when  I  had  bid  adieu  to  it,    the  department  was  a  pretty 
broadly  based  department  of   competencies  and  specialties   that 
complemented  one   another  and  covered  a  gamut  of   things  involved 
in  the   diseases   of   plants.      I   thought   that  was   a  fairly   forward 
way   of   looking  at   things,    but  it  came  at  somewhat  of   a  price   of 
less   emphasis  on  the  applied  nature   of   plant   pathology.      My 
concern  about   plant   pathology   as  a   profession  today    is   that   the 
whole   profession  has    gone  that  way. 

Lage  :  Into   specialization? 

Kendrick:      Into   specialization.      You  go   to  a   professional    meeting  nowadays, 
and  it  looks  like  a   collection  of  an  applied   biology   and 
chemistry    sections.      The  kinds   of   papers  and  the  thesis  research 
are  very   specific,    quite   detailed,    and  very   biochemistry- 
oriented.      Not  very    much   attention  is   being  given  to   controlling 
the   nature   of  what  is   going  on  in   plants   after   these   events    get 
initiated.       So  I   think  that   the  profession  needs  a   redefinition 
of  what  it  is   that  keeps  it   together  in  the  first   place.      In   my 
view,    it   is  a   profession  that  is   uniquely   capable   of    studying  the 
interaction  of  biological    systems   that  result  in  an  adverse 
consequence    for    the  plant,    the  host   plant.       If    there  isn't   some 
attention  at  redefinition  of   emphasis  to  this  interaction  and  an 
effort   to   control,    or  at  least  ameliorate,    the  adversities,    then 
there  really   isn't  anything  in   common  to  hold   the   profession 
together.       It's   just   a   collection  of    specialties. 

The   departments  have  an  important  role  in  that   because   if 
they    don't   emphasize   that,     the   profession   can't   change   it, 
because  the   profession  is  a   collection  of   people  who  like   to   go 
the  meetings   and  talk  to  one   another.      So   I   really   think  the 
departments,    and   particularly    those  in   California,    have  a  real 
challenge    to   try   and  restate  what  plant   pathology    is  about. 


112 


Lage:  I've   heard  from    people  in  other   disciplines   that   team   research   is 

difficult   to  sustain.      People   get  involved  in  their  own  projects, 
and  it's  hard  to  keep  a  team  approach   going.      Have  you  heard   of 
that  in  plant  pathology? 

Kendrick:      Yes.       I'm   glad  you  brought   me   back  to   that   topic.      That's   one   of 
the  most   difficult  evolutionary   steps  in  this  whole  business. 
The  recognition  of   accomplishment  is  really  what  sustains  this 
whole  academic  community.      It's  not  the  monetary   rewards   that 
keep   people   going  in  the  directions  they   go;    it  is  recognition. 
There  is  a   certain  monetary  aspect  to  that   because   that 
recognition  also  results  in  promotions  and  movement  into  tenure 
and  the  rest  of   the  things   that  are  associated  with  the  academic 
community.      So  recognition  is  all- important. 

When  you  have  a  team   of  more   than  two   people — three,    four, 
five,    sometimes   six,    eight,    or  more — it  is   difficult   to  identify 
and  partition  recognition  among  that  team,    as  to  who   did  what  and 
how    important   this   person  was  to  that  team,    or   somebody   else  was. 
This  is   particularly   true  in   California,    the  University    of 
California,    where   the  recognition  is  evaluated  by  your   peers   ir. 
the  Academic  Senate.      Co-authored  papers  are  not    given  as  much 
weight  as  single-authored  papers,    where  there  is  no  question 
about  who  is  responsible  for  what  has   been  written  or   cl  aided. 
I've  seen  a  big  difference  in  recognition  depending  on  whom   is 
the   senior  author,    and  it   also  makes  a  big  difference  whether 
you're  at  the  tail   end  of    that  string  of   authors,    or  whether  you 
are   the   second  or   third  or  fourth   person. 

All   of    that  mitigates  against  team   research.      That  becomes  a 
difficult  problem  for  an  administrator,    to  look  forward  to   my 
career  as  a  vice   president.      The  Division  of   Agricultural 
Sciences,    or  its   successor,    the   Division  of  Agriculture   and 
Natural   Resources,    is  put  together   to  solve  problems, 
agricultural  problems,   and  the  problems  are  not  pure   single- 
science   or   single-discipline   problems.      They    cross  boundary    lines 
of   departments;    they   cross   boundary  lines  of  locations;    they 
cross   boundary    lines  of    subject   matter.       So   the  problems   don't 
orient  themselves  in  a  way   that   single   departments    can  alone 
solve    them. 


What  you  have  in  the  academic  community   is  a  system   for 
partitioning  recognition  and   giving   credit  and  identifying 
creativity   that  becomes  very   difficult  in  these   team   efforts. 
One  way  of  solving  that   sort  of   thing  is  to  tackle  a  big  problem 
with  a  big  team,    and  if  you  plan  it  correctly,   you  partition  off 
the  resultant  descriptions  of  accomplishments  and  papers  and  give 
different   members  of    that  team   the  opportunity   to  be   s«  nior 


113 


Kendrick:      authors.      But  it's  an  incompatible    system;    there's  no  way    around 
it.      The  bigger   the   team,    the  more  difficult  it  is   for 
recognition  to  be    granted  equally    to   all    the    contributors. 

We  had  a  further  complication  in  our  department,    after 
having  gone  the  route   of   trying  to  move  out  into  other 
disciplines  and  add  them    to  our   department.      A  case  in  point  were 
the   two  chemists  who  had,    from  our  perspective,   helped  us  very 
much   in  our   approach   to  understanding  the  diseases  and  the 
organisms   causing  them.     But  when  it  came  time  to  evaluate   those 
chemists,    in  terms  of    their  contributions,    if   their  publications 
were   too  oriented  into  plant   pathology,    the   chemists,   pure 
chemists,    who  sat  on  their  ad-hoc  committees  wouldn't  give  them 
very  much  credit  for   that  kind  of   contribution  because   they 
weren't   really   contributing  to  chemistry.      As  plant  pathologists 
they  weren't   given  all    the   credit  they    should   be    given  either, 
because   their  contributions  weren't  really  very    fundamental    plant 
pathology;   it  was  more   chemically   oriented. 

So  they   were  caught  in  between  professions,    where  the 
chemists  either  tended  to  disown  them  because   they  weren't 
contributing  to  fundamental  knowledge  in  chemistry,    and  the  plant 
pathologists  wouldn't  really   claim   them  because   they  weren't 
contributing  to  the  fundamental   plant  pathology.     And  that  was  a 
problem.      I   think   they   ultimately  suffered  a  little  bit  in  the 
academic  progression  through  the  system,    although  we  chairs 
prevailed  and   they   ultimately   got  along  pretty  well. 

But   it's  another  irony   of   the  academic  system,    that  it 
really  functions  best  when  you  are   studying  a  very  minute   section 
of   a  very   discrete  discipline,   where  your   peers  can  really  get  in 
and  understand  what  it  is  you're   doing.      The   broader-based  you 
become,    the  more  people  are  involved  in  collaborative  efforts, 
the  more  obscure   these  evaluations  become.      So  it   presents  a  real 
challenge   to  the  system.      We  were  able   to  get  through  it,   but 
it's  not   something  you  can  weigh  or  measure  well,    any  way   other 
than  in  an  abstract  way.      Anyway,    I   don't  mean  to  imply   that 
plant  pathology  was  the  only   department  at  Riverside   that  was 
moving  off   in  that  direction,   but   I   think  it  kind  of   helped  lead 
the   way. 


Graduate  TeachinR  Program   Initiated,    1962 


Kendrick:     The  teaching  program,    centered  largely   in  the  graduate   studies, 
was  initiated  in  1962.      That  was  a   significant  event  for  our 
department,    one  that  I  promoted  with  a  lot  of  enthusiasm  with  the 
help   of   my    colleagues.      There  was  really  not  any   identifiable 
resistance   to  that  of  which   I  was  aware.      I  don't  mean  to  claim 


114 


Kendrick:      that   I  am    the   only   one    that   really   brought  it   through  because  in 
the  latter   part  of   1962   I  was  on  sabbatical   leave.      The 
groundwork  was  laid  with  John  Middleton  during  his   chairmanship, 
and  we  were  all   anxious   that  we  be   fairly   recognized  as  a 
teaching  department,   with  the  subsequent  augmentation  of  our 
titles  into  the  professorial   series,    so   that  we  became  a  part  of 
that    teaching   faculty. 

Lage:  Did  everybody    in  the  department  join  the  professorial    ranks? 

Kendrick:     Not  at  the   same   time.      It  was   granted  rather   piecemeal,    depending 
on  what  courses  you  were  offering,    how   many   graduate  students  you 
were  supervising,   and  whether  you  had  charge   of   a   seminar   or 
special   studies.      So  it  did  not  produce   blanket  recognition  with 
augmentation  of   titles  for  everyone.      A  few   in  the   department 
never  were  offered  academic  title,    within  senate  professorial 
series,    because   they   didn't  ever  really  engage   in   the   teaching 
program. 

But   adding  graduate   students  to  our   portfolio  of   activities 
was  a  fairly   significant  event,    as  far  as   the   department  was 
concerned.       It   changed  the  attitude   and  the  focus  of    the 
research.      You  couldn't  assign  a   graduate   student  a   problem    of 
improving  the  varietal   performance   of   citrus.     You  had  to  give 
them   some  kind  of  a  research  program   that  had  an  opportunity   to 
come   to  fruition  and  conclusion  within  a  reasonable  length  of 
time — a  year,   year  and  a  half,    or   two.      So   the   nature   of    the 
studies  necessarily  became  more  fundamental,    more  circumscribed. 
It  also  forced  those  of   us  who  became  involved  in  formal    course 
teaching  to  think  beyond  our  own  immediate  problem  area — in  my 
case,    the  vegetable   diseases.      I  had  to  think  in  terms  of   a 
generalized  program   of   pathogenesis  and  epidemiology  and  the 
effects   of   disease   development.      I  was  teaching  an  advanced 
course  in  plant  pathology,    one   that  was   designed  to  cap  off   the 
training  of   the  students,    so   that  when  they  were  ready   to   go  into 
the  field  and  start  operating  on  their  own.    they   had  some 
familiarity,    or  at  least  they   could  remember  having  discussed  how 
you  approach   these  mysterious   things  you  see  in  the  field,    and 
what   sort   of   things  you  begin  to   unravel   and   study. 

So  the  beginning  of   the  graduate  program  was  important  for 
the   direction  and  the  emphasis  of   the   department  and   the   people 
in  it.      We  had  kind  of   a  ready-made  market  for  entering  students 
because   the  international   reputation  that  our   citrus   pathologists 
had  accumulated  over  the  years   brought   to  Riverside   students  of 
colleagues  in  Japan,    South  Africa,    South  America,    Italy,    Spain, 
and  all   of    the  citrus- grow  ing  areas  of   the  world.      Israel   was 
another  country  with  which  we   collaborated. 

Lage:  That  must  have   changed  the  nature  of    things   at  Riverside,    too. 


115 


Kendrick:      Oh,    it    certainly   did.      We  had  a  heavy   emphasis  on  foreign 

students.       That  kind  of    internationalized  our   outlook.       It   really 
was  a  delightful   exposure  for  me   during  the  five  years   that    I  was 
a  department   chair.      I   tried  to  take   a  note  from   my    father's  way 
of  handling   graduate   students  and   tried  to   create  opportunities 
to  make   them    feel    more  at  home.      So  it  wasn't  just  a  formal 
teaching  experience  in  which  there  was  a   gulf   between  the  faculty 
and   the    students. 

I  probably  came  to  this  conclusion  with  more  emphasis 
because   my  experience  at   Cambridge   during  my   sabbatical   leave  in 
'61    and  '62  was   so  fresh   in  my    mind.       It  was   so  apparent   that   the 
graduate  students  at   the   Cambridge  University   did  not  have   a 
close,    friendly   relationship  with   the  supervisors  of    their 
research.      It  was   kind   of   a  formal   and  stiff   relationship,    in 
spite   of    the  fact   that   the  professor   or   the   senior  lecturer  would 
have  a  Sunday   tea  once  in  a  while  for   the   students  and   think   that 
that  was   discharging  their  social   duties  to  them.      Socializing 
was  more  important   than  I  thought  in  general  from  another 
standpoint,    using  my   own  experience   at  Wisconsin.      As   I   described 
J.    C.    Walker,    he  was   kind   of   a   tough,    gruff   fellow   at  work,    but 
he  was  very   personable   on  a   social   basis.      His   graduate   students 
gathered  at  his  home,   with   Mrs.   Walker,    rather  regularly   for 
social   events.      And  we  got  to  see  him   in  a   different  light   than 
the    teacher-student   relationship. 

Well,    not   to  belabor   the  point,    I  attempted  to  bring  that 
kind  of   camaraderie  and   social  experience  to  these   students  in 
plant   pathology.      And  I   think  it  worked  out   pretty   well.      We 
entertained  in  our  home  regularly  a  number  of   times.      We  would 
try    to  have   departmental    events,    picnics  and  the  like.      The 
barrier  between  teacher  and  student  was  at  least  lowered,    to  a 
considerable  extent. 

I   guess   that's   about   where   I'm   going  to  leave  it.      One   of 
the  lasting   things   that   I'm   pleased  to  note  is   still   hanging   on 
at  Riverside   is  that   the  department   still  holds  the 
Conversazione.      This  is  an  event  which  is  more   than  a   seminar. 
It   is  an  event   in  which   the  faculty    and  the  students  would  gather 
on  a  regular  basis   during  the  academic  year  and  listen  to  a 
speaker   on  a   topic,    on  which  they   could  develop  some 
conversation.      In  trying  to   design  an  attractive  way   to   describe 
it,    I   came   up  with   the  notion  that  it  ought  to  be   called  the 
Conversaz ior.e,     Italian   spelling. 

It   got  institutionalized,    and  we  held  them   regularly  enough 
so  that  it  really  worked  out   pretty  well,    with  an  informal 
evening  meeting  for  an  hour  or  two,    where  the  students  really 
felt  that  they   could  come  in  and  meet   the  faculty   in  a  friendly 
informal    atmosphere.      We   usually   served  coffee  and  donuts  or 
sweet  rolls  as  refreshments. 


116 


Lage:  And  this  was  just  graduate   students,    or  would  it  include 

undergraduates? 

Kendrick:      We   really   didn't  have   any    undergraduates.       We  had  a   graduate 

program,    but  we   didn't  have  any   undergraduate   teaching.       Plant 
pathology   offers   in  some  institutions  an   undergraduate   degree, 
but  it    doesn't  really   lend  itself    to  an    undergraduate    degree 
because  you  have  to  get  so  much  background,    so  much  biology 
first.      By    the   time  you  get  all   of   the   botany,    the   chemistry  and 
the  microbiology   and  all  you  really  need  before  you  begin  to 
study   abnormal   botany,    you've  finished  your  four  years.       So 
there's  not  a  lot  of   room   left  in  an  undergraduate  curriculum    to 
put  enough  plant   pathology   into  it  to   get  a   degree  in  plant 
pathology.      So  we   didn't   pursue    the   undergraduate   degree; 
fundamentally   it's   a    graduate    program. 

I  notice  once  in  a  while  when  I  see  the  meeting  schedule  for 
the  Department  of  Plant  Pathology  at  Riverside  that  they're  still 
meeting  for  the  Cor.versaz ione. 

Lage:  That's  a  nice  legacy. 

Kendrick:     They   probably  don't  know  who  introduced  the  idea. 

Lage:  How   did  you  happen  to  pick  that  name?     Where   did  the   Italian 

name   come  in? 

Kendrick:  Cambridge.  They  had  a  Conversaz ione.  I  don't  know  why  they  have 
an  Italian  name,  but  it  was  one  of  the  things  I  brought  back  from 
there,  and  I  thought  it  would  be  a  good  idea  to  try  it  at  Riverside. 

Let  me   say   one  more  thing  about   the   three   departments   of 
plant   pathology    in  the  University   of    California.      We  had  a 
practice   that   started  with  my   father,   John  Middleton  and  Dr. 
Gardner  at  Berkeley,    of   holding  a   statewide   plant   pathology 
conference  once  a  year.     That  was  motivated  by  a   desire   of    the 
members  of   the  three  departments  to  become  better  acquainted  w  ith 
each  other,    and  it  was   constructed  around   sessions   in  which  we 
would  talk  about   subjects  of    interest  to  the  whole  group.      Since 
this  was  prior  to  the   time  when  we  at  Riverside  were  engaged   in 
teaching,    the  teaching  subjects  were  not  sessions  that  we  would 
participate  in,    but  there  would   be   sessions   that  were  research- 
oriented  or   policy- orientated,    or  dealing  with  budget  problems  or 
personnel    evaluation   techniques  and   policies. 

But  the  major  emphasis  was  to  get  better  acquainted  with  one 
another.  That  continued  quite  productively.  I  think  it's  fallen 
off  a  little  bit  nowadays;  I  don't  think  they  meet  more  than 
about  once  every  two  years,  and  the  attendance  tends  not  to  be  as 
good  as  it  was  in  those  early  years.  But  during  the  years  that  I 
had  anything  to  do  with  it,  we  had  pretty  good  attendance. 


117 


Kendrick:      We   created  a   small  executive   group  with  the  three   department 

chairs  and  a   representative   from    each   of    the   three   departments. 
This  executive   committee   of   six  people  handled  things   of    common 
interest  and  need  without   needing  to   call   everybody   together  for 
a  meeting.      So  it  was  an  attempt   by   us,   as   departments,    to 
collaborate   and   not   pursue    things    that   got  in  one   another's  way. 
I   think  it  worked  out   to  our  advantage — that  was   a 
nonadministratively  stimulated  effort,    although   the 
administration  at  the   time    certainly   didn't   discourage   us  from 
getting  together.      The  entomology   department  at  Berkeley   and 
Riverside  and  Davis   also   did   the    same   thing,    in  a  little 
different    way. 


118 


VI      THE   KENDRICKS'    COMWNITY  ACTIVITIES    IN  RIVERSIDE 


Active  in  the  Presbyterian  Church 


Kendrick:     Let's   get  on  to  some  of    the  community   activities. 
Lage:  How  large  a  community  was  Riverside? 

Kendrick:     Well,    in  1947    when  we  arrived  in  town,    the  city   had  a   population 
of   about  35,000   people.      The   city   boundaries   suggested   a    city 
larger   than  that,    but   there  was  a  lot  of   agriculture  inside   the 
city  limits.      It  was  a  long  narrow    city;    distance  from    the   north 
boundary   to   the  southern  boundary   was   nearly   eight  or   ten  miles. 
It  bordered  the  Santa  Ana  River,    which  is    underground  most   of    the 
time,    except   in  flood  stages.       It's  a   river  that's  been  sanded  up 
through  the  years  of   flooding  and  floodplain  activity.      The 
channel    is   perfectly   obvious,    and  it's  a   fairly   wide    channel.       So 
the   city   of   Riverside  was   built   on  the   side   of    the   river. 

The  community   was  relatively   small,    although  it  was  much 
larger  than  Davis,   which  was  a  very   small   community,    not 
exceeding  about   1,500   people  in  those   early   days  when  I  was 
associated  with  it.     So  Riverside  was   a  fairly   good-sized 
metropolis  when  we  moved  there  in  1947.     Of   course,    now    it's 
much,    much  bigger. 

The  community   activities  began  for  us  primarily  with  our 
association  with   Calvary   Presbyterian   Church.      When  Evelyn  and   I 
moved  to  Riverside,    we  had  a  difficult   time  finding  a   place   to 
live.     We  first  lived  in  a  room  in  the  home   of    the  mother  of   one 
of    the   subsequent   faculty    members  of   Riverside,    Mrs.    Bingham. 
That  gave  us  a  couple   of  months  to  look  around,    and  we  found  a 
two-bedroom   duplex  in  the  western  part  of   town  about  five  miles 
from    the   Citrus  Experiment   Station.      It  was  very    comfortable. 
The   other   part  of    it  was  occupied  by   Lillian  and  Bud  Bartlett. 
Bud  was  a  member  of   the  entomology   department  in  the   Citrus 
Experiment  Station  so  we  shared  our  transportation  to  work  with 
each  other. 


119 


Kendrick:      Then  we  decided  that  we  would  take  the  plunge  and  build  our   own 

home  in  1950.      We  moved  to   the  eastern   part  of    the  city,    near  the 
city  limits.      Our  property  was   near   the  west   border   of   the   Citrus 
Experiment    Station   on  a   street   called  Prince   Albert  Drive. 
That's  where  we  were  when  we  moved   to  Berkeley   in  1968. 

But   our  beginning  association  with   the   city   of   Riverside 
itself  began  with  our    contacts  and  our  attendance  at   Calvary 
Presbyterian  Church,    which  was  a  large   downtown  church,    next   to 
the   community  hospital.      It  was  an   urban   church  and  had  a 
congregation  of    a  large    size.      Its   congregation  was  made    up  of    a 
pretty    good   cross-section   of    Riverside's    professional    people, 
business   persons,    doctors,    lawyers,    bankers,    municipal   judges, 
county  judges,    municipal   and   county   school    officials.      We    got 
invited  by   someone   to  a   group  called  Mariners,    which  was  a  group 
for  young   couples.      That  is  where  we  found   the  various 
professional    and   business   people. 

One  of   the  leaders  of    that   group  at   that   time  was   the 
secretary   of   the  Riverside   Chamber  of   Commerce,    a  fellow   named 
Chuck    [Charles   B.]    O'Neill.       Chuck   O'Neill   was,    like   a  lot    of    the 
executive  managers  of   chambers  of   commerce,    a  very   outgoing 
person,    very  easy   to   know   and  quite  friendly.      And   of   course  he 
made    us   feel   at  home  instantly.      It's  interesting  to  note   that  he 
was  a  vigorous  member  of   the   Citizens'  University    Committee   that 
was  quite  active  in  the  early   fifties  in  trying  to  persuade   the 
Regents   to  establish   the   College   of  Letters  and  Science  at 
Riverside.      So  he  had  more  than  a   casual    interest   in  people  who 
were  from   the   Citrus  Experiment  Station. 

And  subsequently,    Chuck  O'Neill   was  employed  by    the 
experiment   station  to  be   their  business  manager. 

Lage:  Town  and   gown   coming  together. 

Kendrick:      Town  and   gown  was  really   coming  together  quite  well.      That 
experience    of   becoming  acquainted  with  a  cross—section  of 
Riverside  very   early   in  our   stay   introduced   us   to  a  number   of 
people  whom  we  became  friendly  with  in  a   social   way  and  led  us  to 
spend  our  leisure   time  with   the   citizens   of   Riverside,    rather 
than  socializing  with  colleagues  whom   I  was  with  most  of   the  day. 
I'd  have  to   say    that  is  not   the   usual  way   in  which   the  academic 
community    relates   to  one   another.      They    tend  to  isolate 
themselves  among  themselves  and  not  mix  into  the   community. 

Well,    it  wasn't   too  long,    without   campaigning  for  it,    that 
Evelyn  and   I  wound   up  as   the    chief   Mariners.      Mariners,    I   think, 
is  a   Presbyterian  term    used  to   describe   the  group  for  young 
married    couples. 


120 


Kendrick:      You'll   also  notice  how   I   said  it  was  a   group  for  young   married 

couples,    which  really   describes  the  times  of   the  late  forties  and 
fifties.      It  was  assumed  that  most  young   couples  were  married, 
not  the  kind  of   mixed  family   relationships  which  are  so  common 
today. 

But  as   I  had  started  to  say,    Evelyn  and  I   found  ourselves 
captains  of  the  Mariners — I  forget  what  title  they   called   their 
leadership,    but — within  short  order,    we  were  the  leaders  of   that 
group.      And  of   course,    that   gives  you  a   great  opportunity   to  know 
everybody,    work  with  them,    and  find  out  what  they   do  and  what 
they're  interested  in.      So  we  quickly   became  well-known  in   the 
group,    as  well   as   making  a  lot  of   friends  among  a  wide   array   of 
Riverside   citizens. 

I  became  fairly  active  in  the  choir.      I  liked  choral   wcrk, 
and  during  most  of   the  years   I  was  in  Riverside,    I   sang  in  the 
choir.      That  placed  me  with  another   group  of   people,    and   I   got  a 
little  better  acquainted  with  the  inner  workings   of   a  large 
church.      This  church,    as   I   recall,    must  have  had  twelve  or 
fifteen  hundred  members.      It  was   not   small. 

I  progressed  through   the  various  activity    groups  of    the 
church,    becoming  a   deacon  and   then  an  elder.      I   participated  in   a 
building  committee  program,    and  we  built  the  main  sanctuary,    a 
gothic  concrete  structure  during  the   time  we  were   there.      I 
served  on  a  search  committee  for  the  senior  minister  who  presided 
for  the   significant   time  that  we  were  in  Riverside.      The   senior 
minister  of    the   church  when  we  joined  was  Denton  Jerow.      Denton, 
incidentally,   became  a  neighbor  of  ours  on  Prince  Albert  Drive 
when  he  retired  and  built  a  home  just  across  the  street  from   us; 
we  were  well-acquainted  with  him.      The  minister  whom  we   searched 
for  when  Denton  decided  to  retire  was  T.    Franklyn  Hudson,    who  was 
the  minister  of    the   First   Presbyterian   Church  in  Oakland   before 
he   came   to  Riverside   and  spent   nearly   twenty  years  as  the   senior 
minister   of    the   Calvary    Presbyterian   Church. 

The   three   choir  directors  for  whom    I  sang  and  became  well 
acquainted  with  were  Helge   Pearson,    Roberta  Bitgood  and  Jack 
Schneider,    and  each  one   of    those   added  considerably  to  my   musical 
education. 

All    of    this  early   exposure  led  to  other  kinds  of   activities. 
Evelyn  became  fairly  active,    in  spite   of    the  fact   that  we  had   two 
young  adopted   children  at   the  time,     in   Children's  League    of 
Riverside.      That  organization  was  associated  with  the    community 
hospital,    Riverside   Community   Hospital.      The  primary   purpose   of 
Children's  League  was   to  furnish   the    children's   wing   of    the 
hospital    with   amenities  to  make   a  hospital   stay    for  children  more 
enjoyable  and  less  of   a  harrowing  experience.      There  were  opportu 
nities   for   social    activities   for  young  children,     and  their  mothers. 


121 


Kendrick:      We  adopted  Janet,    our   daughter,    in  December   of   1949.      Her 

birthdate   is  October  15,    1949.      We   adopted  her  brother,    Douglas, 
in  June   of  1952,    and  his   birthdate  is   March  10,    1952.      So  by 
1952,   when  a  lot  of    these   activities  that   I'm  describing  were 
bubbling  along,    we  had  these   two-  and  less   than  one-year-olds   to 
take    care   of,    plus  a   new    home  on  Prince  Albert  Drive.      We  were 
really  quite   busy   and  active  and  happy.      It  was  a   good   time   of 
our   lives,     to  be   thoroughly    incorporated  in  the  Riverside    city, 
its  life,    and  activities.      I  was  busy  with   my  work  at   the 
experiment    station. 


Town  and  Gown  Tensions;      Explaining  the  University    to  the 
Community 


Kendrick:     We  weren't  ignoring  our   university   activities;   there  was  the 

active   group   called  Campus   CLub,    which   I  have    described  earlier 
and  in  which  Evelyn  was  active.      The  Campus   CLub  was   important  in 
the  lives  of  members  of   the  Citrus  Experiment  Station  because 
through  their  hospitality   committee,    Christmas  parties,    and 
summer  picnics  the   club  fostered  the  family   nature   of  our 
relatively    small   group  of  University   people. 

Well,    Campus   Club  and  the   Citizens'  University    Committee 
were  both   seeking  ways  to  make   the  development  of   the  College   of 
Letters  and  Science  at  Riverside   a  happy  experience.      An 
outgrowth   of    those   groups,    which  didn't  replace   either   one,    was 
Town  and  Gown.      We  had  a  Town  and  Gown  organization  to   develop, 
and  that  was  also  a  fun  experience.      The  only  difficulty   was   that 
there  was  a  lot  of  eagerness  from   the  town   people  to   become  a 
part  of    it  but   not  very   much  participation  from   the  new   college 
faculty.      There  was   pretty    good  participation  by    the  experiment 
station  people,    but    I  would  say   there  was  meager  attendance   at 
Town  and  Gown  events   by   the    college  faculty. 

Lage:  As  you've   described  the  new    faculty    in  earlier  interviews,    I   can 

see   they   might  not  enter  eagerly   into   the   community. 

Kendrick:      Well,    they   were  young,    and  they  were  oriented  towards  their  own 
academic  development  and   career.      I  have  to   say   that   I   think 
there  was  a  little  bit  of   academic  snobbery;   they   felt  they   were 
a  little  bit  above  those  town  people  who  were  working  for  a 
living.       [laughs] 

Lage:  Perhaps  they    came  from   a  more   urban  setting — 

Kendrick:      Well,    it  was  not  only   that.      I   think   there  was  an  incompatability 
in  conversations.      It  was  easy    to   get  angry   discourses   going 
between  someone  who  felt   that  they  wanted  to   socialize   the    city, 


122 


Kendrick:     wanted  to  bay   the  municipal   power  supply,    buy  out  Southern 

California  Edison  and  turn  over   the   utilities  to  a  municipally- 
owned  organization.      I  mention  that   because  it   became  quite  an 
issue  in  the  city.      One  of    the  early  problems  that  Provost 
Watkins  and  his  administrative   colleagues  had  was  to   calm   down 
some   city    fathers  about  what  kind  of    radicalized  faculty   they 
were  assembling  on  the  Riverside   campus,  who  seemed  to  want  to 
bring  communism   and  socialism   to  this  quiet  community,    which  had 
been   getting  along  very    comfortably   all    these  years. 

Lage:  But  at  least   that  does  show   some  interest  in  community   affairs, 

if   the  faculty  was  interested — 

Kendrick:     Well,    there  were   several    activists  in  the  sociology   department, 
but   that's   their  profession.      They    search  around  for   these 
opportunities   to   try   and   change    [laughing]    the   structures.       I 
always   chuckled  a  bit  about   this   because   of    all    the  eagerness 
that   communities   show,    usually   making  a  lot  of   effort  to  get  a 
university  or  a   college   campus  established  in   their   community 
without   realizing  the  full    impact  of   living  with  a  university   as 
a   neighbor.      Once  it's    there,    it's   often  an   uncomfortable 
relationship  because   it  is   the  nature  of    the  faculties  to  be   a 
bit   disrespectful    of   traditional   institutions.      They   are   a  free- 
thinking  collection  of   people;    like  Judge  Bork*  in  his  writings, 
he's   provocative  and  he    challenges.      Faculties,     if    they're  any 
good,    are  provocative.      They're  not  necessarily  comfortable  with 
the  status  quo  unless  it  involves   their   own  welfare,    in  which 
case    they're  well    entrenched   and   defend   that   status  vigorously. 
They   don't  want  any   monkeying  around  with   those   kinds   of    changes 
for    themselves.      But  as   far  as   somebody   else's   situation  is 
concerned,    or  a  city  government  or  what-have-you,    they   (some  few 
activists)   want   to   get  in  and   change    things   so   that  in  their 
minds  everybody   gets   treated  fair  and   equal. 

Lage:  Did  you  find  yourself   in  a   role  of   mediator,    or  someone  who 

explained  the  — 

Kendrick:      I   found  myself   in  a   role   of    defender   of    the  University,    but   not 
in  the   sense   that  I   defended  everything  it   did.     What   I  was 
trying  to  do  was  explain  what  the  University   was,    and  that  they 
should  be  glad  that   they  had   the  academic  experience  introduced 
into   their  midst.      I  was  a   person  who  felt   that  not  everything 
that  we  did  in  the  name  of   the  University   or   the  name   of    the 
faculty   was   necessarily   correct  or  right,   but   I  spent  a  lot  of 
time  trying  to  broaden  the    perspective   of   my   colleagues  in  the 


*  The   congressional    hearings   on  the  nomination  of    Robert  Bork  to 
the  IKS.    Supreme   Court  were  taking  place  at   the   time   of   this 
interview. 


123 


Kendrick:      community  and  suggest  to  them   that  the  members  of   the  faculty   had 
every    right   to  express  their  individual    opinions.      And  that   that 
was   -i  valuable  freedom  which   the   citizens  ought   to   cherish. 

A  lot  of   my   business  and  agricultural    friends  had  pretty 
conservative  Republican  attitudes.       It  was   sort   of   a    "Yes,     sir, 
no,    sir,"  attitude   about   things,    and  law    and  order  was  at   the   top 
of    their  list   of   priorities.      Obedience  and  subservience   to 
authority   were   sort  of    the  order   of    the  day,    and  you  did  what  the 
boss  told  you  to   do. 

Those   attitudes  are  not  held  in  very   high   regard  by   a 
faculty.      I   spent  a   good   deal    of   my    time   both   socially   and  in 
other  arenas   trying  to  interpret  what  the  faculty   was  and  why    it 
was  important  and  proper  for   them   to   be  questioning  traditional 
policies   as  well   as  traditional    activities. 

Lage:  This  must  have   given  you   great  experience  for  your  later  work  as 

vice   president. 

Kendrick:      Well,    I  think  it   did.      I   felt  rather   strongly   at  Riverside   that 
the  University  was   being  maligned  unnecessarily  and   that   the 
University    was  more   than  a   football   team   and  a  basketball   team. 
The  Town  and  Gown  did  a  lot   to  help  in  that  regard;   we  had   a  lot 
of  very    fun  social    events.      It  was   not  an  organization  where  we 
attempted  to  hold  erudite   discussions  and  meetings,    but  it  was  an 
organization  which  had  social    events  at  least  twice   a  year, 
always  well  attended.      The   climate  of  Riverside  was   such   that 
fall   gatherings    could  be  held  outside   in  one   of    the  town  member's 
large  yard.      They  were  looked  forward   to,    particularly   by    the 
town  people,    and  I  always  felt  it  was  too  bad  that  more  of   my 
college  faculty    colleagues   didn't  attend   so   that    they    could 
engage    in  informal   discourse   and  arguments.       I   thought   they'd  be 
better   understood  if   they  would  just  explain  themselves. 

I   had  a   colleague   in  biochemistry,    who   tended  to  be   a  real 
nonconformist  as  far  as   the   traditional   policies  and  values  in 
society   were   concerned — that  is,    traditional    as  far  as  Riverside 
was   concerned.      I   used  to  remind  him   that  he  lived  in  a   community 
of   people  who  were  not  all   working  at   the  University,    and   I  said, 
"If  we    could  just    get   the  faculty   to  explain  to  their  neighbors 
why    they    think  what   they   do  is  important  to  them,    and  begin  to 
try  and  translate  what  it  is   that  makes   the  University    tick,    I 
think  we'd  be   much   better   understood.      Have  you  ever   tried  to 
explain  to  your   neighbor  why   it's   important  to   study   the 
translocation  of   2,4-D  ions  across  a  membrane  in  a  plant?      Trying 
to  explain,    in  your   neighbor's   terms,    what  it  is   that   drives  you 
to  have   an  interest   in  that  kind  of    investigation?" 


124 


Kendrick:      Well,     that's   only    illustrative   of    the   kinds   of    things   that    I 
think   faculty    are   not   good  at.      They    don't   explain  why 
professional   interests   drive  them  with  such   dedication  into   these 
studies.      I   think  they    sell   short   the  ability   of    non-academic 
people  to  comprehend  those   sorts  of    things   if   they  just  explain 
to   them.      Riverside  was   not   unique   in  having  some  strained 
relationships  with  individual  members   of   the  faculty,    but   there 
was  a  general   acceptance   of    the  University  as  a  whole,    and 
Provost  Watkins  was  such  a  lovable   person   that  he    could   calm 
almost  any   apprehension  that  would  arise. 


Free   Speech  Days  at   Riverside 


Kendrick:      You  can  imagine  that  when  the  free   speech  activities    came   along, 
in  the  early   and  mid-sixties,    the  events  that  were  happening  at 
Berkeley  at  that   time  were  not   solely   confined  to  Berkeley.      The 
other   campuses  began  to  stir,    too. 

[laughs]      I   recall   a  request  from   the  Young  Communist  League 
to  hold  a  meeting  on   the  University    campus.       I    don't   recall 
specifically   when  it  was,    but   I  would  guess  it  was  in  the  mid- 
sixties —  '64,    '65 — right  about  the  time  that    Clark  Kerr  was 
having  all  kinds  of    trouble   convincing  the  Regents  that   denial    of 
free  speech  was   going  to   cause  more   problems   than  acquiesing  and 
at  least   trying  to   control    it. 

Well,    the  event  that  was  proposed  at  Riverside  was  a 
particularly    controversial    event.      There  was   a  lot   of    strong 
feeling  about   staging  this   communist   speaker  to  talk  about 
whatever  was  on  his  mind  at  the   time.      I   think   I  was  in   the 
Kiwanis   CLub  then.      (I  joined  Kiwanis  with  some  degree  of 
reluctance  in  1962.      I  had   been  approached   to  join  Kiwanis    Club 
much   earlier   than  that  by   one   of    my   closest  friends  in  the 
department,  Dr.   Merrill  Wallace,  who  had  been  a  member  of   Kiwanis 
Club  for  all   the  years  that  he  was   in  the  department.      He  was 
another  one  of   these  who  moved  easily   in  the   community.      I   kind 
of    followed  Merrill's  lead,    because    I   regarded  his  activities  and 
advice    rather   importantly.) 

I  recall   spending  a  lot  of    time  trying  to  explain  to  ay 
Kiwanis  friends   that  scheduling  a   communist  talk  on  the    campus 
was  not  necessarily  a  bad  thing,    that  it  could  lead  to  an 
exposure  of   the  fallacies  of   communism   a  lot  easier   than  trying 
to   suppress   them   and  keeping  them    in  the   dark.       I   said,    "Don't 
overlook  the  fact  that  we  have  a  lot  of   refugees   from    communist 
countries   around  here,     and  they're  just   dying  to   undress   this 
person. " 


125 


Kendrick:      Well,    the  event  was   ultimately   scheduled  over  loud  protests  from 
every   quarter,    and  that's   precisely   what  happened.      We  had  a 
member  in  our  department  who  was  a   combination  laboratory 
technician-graduate  student,   who  had  escaped  communist   domination 
in  World  War   II. 

Lage:  From  what   country? 

Kendrick:      Yugoslavia.      He  had  been  captured  in  World  War  II  and   forced  to 
serve  in  the  Russian  Army.      He  was   the  most  violent  anti- 
communist   person   I   ever   saw,    and  I   think  he  even  joined  the  John 
Birch  Society.      I   said,    "Well,    I   can   understand  John   being  a 
member   of    the  John  Birch  Society   because  he  had  had 
excruciatingly  difficult  experiences  with  communists  and 
communist    domination." 

One   thing  I   found  out  was  that  those  refugees  from   the 
communist   countries   came  out  of   the  woodwork  at  that  meeting,  and 
they    really   laced  into   this   person  who  was  expounding  the  virtues 
of   communism  and  the   communist  way   of  life.      It  was  a  real   eye- 
opener,    I   thought,    to  the  value   of   free   speech,    which   a  lot  of 
people  had  feared  would  result  in  a   pied  piper  reaction.      So   to 
my   Kiwanis  colleagues  I  said,    "You  sell  the  academic  community 
short   if  you  think   they're  a  bunch   of   pied  piper   mice  and 
children.       They    don't   follow   just  because   somebody    says  'Come  on 
and   I'll   lead  you.'      Their  life   is    spent   questioning  established 
dogma,    and  if   they're  any   good  as   faculty    members,    they'll  study 
the  issue  very   carefully   before   they   arrive  at  any   particular 
commitment. " 


Membership  in  Community  Organizations 


Kendrick:      Well,    backing   up  a   little  bit,    Evelyn's  activities  in  Children's 
League  and  Tick-Tockers    (a  mothers  and   daughters   organization  for 
community    service)    led  to  her  being  asked  to  join  the  Junior  Aid, 
a  young  women's   group   composed  of  wives  and  single  women 
associated  with  the  active   social    structure  of   the  community. 
Membership  was   coveted  by  many   of   the  young  ladies   because   of   its 
social    status.      That  was   not  true   of   Evelyn,  -however.      That 
organization  later  became  affiliated  with   the   national  Junior 
League   group  and   changed  its  name  to   the  Junior  League   of 
Riverside.      It  is  an  organization  which  raises  money   for   good 
causes.      You'll   recall    I  earlier   said  that  it  was  in  one   of    these 
Junior-Aid-sponsored  follies,    a  fundraiser,    that   the  quartet    I 
was   a   part  of   appeared. 


126 


Kendrick:      Well,    that  led  to  further  exposure  to  a  little   broader-based 

collection  of   Riverside    people   and   citizens,    and  placed  us   cr.ce 
again  in  another   social    structure   of    the   town.      It   broadened  our 
acquaintances   even  further. 

As   I  had  mentioned  earlier,    I  had  finally  yielded  to  the 
pressure   to  join  Kiwanis   dub   in  1962.      I  had  resisted   doing  it 
because   of    their  attendance   requirement.      I  was  out  of   town  a 
good  deal  with  my   professional   activities,    and   I   felt   that    I 
wasn't   going  to  be   able   to  maintain  their  attendance   requirements 
easily.      But   because    I  had  so  many   friends,    both   through   the 
church  and  through   the  Victoria  Country   Club,    which  we  joined 
primarily  for  golf  and  swimming,    in  the  late  fifties   I    gave   in 
and  joined  them   in  Kiwanis  membership. 

My   closest  friend,    Sheldon  Pouley,    now   deceased,    who  was   a 
businessman  in  Riverside,    and  Cub  Callis,    who  lived  across   the 
street  from   us  and  worked  for  the  school   system,    said   to  ce   one 
day,     "You   don't  have   to   do   anything   if  you  join  the  Kiwanis   Club. 
Just  attend   the  luncheons."      I   mistakenly   believed  him.      Within 
about  a  month,    I  was   introducing  the  speaker,    and  another  month  I 
was  the   song  leader,    aided  by  Homer  Chapman,    who  was   the   pianist 
for  our  quartet,    as  well   as   for  Kiwanis.      He  was  also  a  long-time 
Kiwanian,   another   person  who  mixed  well  in  town,   and  a  member   of 
the  Calvary   Presbyterian  Church.     He  was   chairman  of    the  soils 
department  and  was   Dan  Aldrich's    chair  at   the   time   Dan  Aldrich 
was  in  the  department. 


It   seemed  that  my  notoriety   as  a  quartet  member  dictated 
that   I   should  become  the   song  leader  at  Kiwanis,    so  with  Homer  at 
the  piano,    I   felt   that  would  be   easy    to  do;  Homer   could   cover   up 
almost  any   mistake  that  a   person  made  because  he  was   such  a   good 
pianist.      Anyway,   within  about   six  weeks,    following  the   advice 
that   I   didn't  have   to   do  anything  in  Kiwanis,    I   found   myself  more 
than  just  a  little  active  in  the  club.      That  led  to  a  broader 
exposure   of  acquaintanceship;  we  had   the   usual    events   that 
Kiwanis  (Hubs  have.      I  ultimately   found  myself  on  the  board  of 
directors  for  the  club,   and  at  the   time   I  had  to  resign  and  move 
to  Berkeley  as  the  vice   president,    I  was  the  first  vice   president 
of   the  club,    slated  to  move  into  the   presidency  in  the  following 
year.      So  1968  extracted  me  from   that  particular  commitment, 
which  I  had  been  looking  forward  to. 

When  I   moved  to  Berkeley,    I  checked  in  with  the  Kiwanis   dub 
at  Berkeley  and  went  to  one  meeting  and  found   that  it  was   not 
anything  like   the   club  I   had  left.       It  was  the  last   time   I've  had 
any    affiliation  with  any    service    club. 


127 


Evelyn's   School  Board  Service 

Kendrick:     Back  to  Riverside.      In  1964,    there  was  a  vacancy   that  occurred  on 
the  Riverside   City   School  Board.      On  our   street,    Prince  Albert 
Drive,    there  was  a  good  representation  from   the  school   system   of 
Riverside.      Bill  Noble,    president  of    the  Riverside   City   Community 
College  lived  two  doors  from   us,   and   a  little  further   down  the 
street  lived  Bruce   Miller,    who  was  the  superintendent  of   the  city 
schools.      Cub   Callis,    in   charge   of   construction  for  the  school 
system,    lived  across  the  street  from   us.      I  have  already 
mentioned  that  Denton  Jerow,    the  retired  minister  of   Calvary 
Presbyterian  Church,    lived  across  the  street  from   us.      A  long 
time  acquaintance,   Robert  Metcalf,   who  was   chairman  of  the 
Department  of   Entomology   at  this  time,    was  a  next-door  neighbor. 
Bob  is  now   at  the  University   of   Illinois  and  is  about  ready   to 
retire.      He  was  the  golfer  who  got  me  into  playing  golf. 

Jim   Pitts,   who  was  a  professor  of   chemistry  and  at  that   time 
the  chairman  of    the  Department  of   Chemistry,    also  lived  on  our 
street.      The  section  of  Prince  Albert  Drive  where  we  lived  was  a 
dead-end  street,    so  it  was  a   self-contained  neighborhood.      It  was 
a  street  where  the   people  had  a   strong  feeling  of   community; 
everybody   on  the  street  would  participate  in  Fourth  of  July 
events,   when  we  would  close  off   the   street  and  have  a   street 
party.      Contrary   to  the  kind  of  busy,    involved  urban  living  that 
some   people  endure,    this  was  not  the   case   on  that   street. 
Everybody   was  well   acquainted  with  everybody  else. 

In  1964,  when  a  vacancy   on  the  Riverside   City   School  Board 
occurred,    Evelyn  was  asked  to  fill   that  vacancy.     We  were  both 
surprised  and  flattered  by   the  request.      Evelyn  was  a  little 
hesitant  to  accept,   but   I   could  see  that  she  was  interested  in 
serving  on  the  board.      I  said,   "That's  a  good  idea."     So  she 
accepted  the  invitation  and  began  to  serve  as  a  member  of   the 
five-person  Riverside   City  School  Board.      Thus   began  another 
exposure  to  a  broader  aspect  of   community   activities. 

She  served  with  much  dedication  and  gave   a  lot  of    time  to 
her  board  duties.      Our  children  were  old  enough   to  not  need  close 
attention.      They  were  still  in  school  and  somewhat   embarrassed  by 
having  their  mother  on  the  city   school   board. 

When  her  term  expired  in  1966,    she  was  then  required  to  run 
for  election,    which  was  a  new    experience  for  us,    and  one  that  she 
was  not  really   thrilled  about,   but   she   did  decide  to   stand  for 
election,    nevertheless.      She  ran  with  the  very   popular  president 
of   the  board,   whose  name  is  Art  Littleworth.      Art  is   a  lawyer 
with  the  firm  Best,    Best,    and  Kreiger,    a  leading  law    firm  in 
Riverside. 


128 


Kendrick:      Arthur  Littlew or th  was  a  very  compassionate,    competent,   and 

intelligent  leader  of    that  board.      It  was  about   1965  when  a  de 
facto   segregated  school   in  Riverside  was   burned.      It  was  never 
proven  that  it  was   caused  by  arson,    but  most   people  were  rather 
certain  that  it  was.      That   brought  to  immediate  attention 
Riverside's  problem  with  segregation.      There  were  two  kinds  of 
segregation  of   schools  in  Riverside:      one  was  Hispanic,    or 
Mexican,    and  the  other  was  black.      These   schools  were  not 
constructed  to  be   segregated,   but   because   they  were  built  in 
neighborhoods   that  became  dominated  by  either  Hispanic  or  Mexican 
residents,    on  the   one  hand,    or  black,    on  the   other,    they   became 
de   facto   segregated  schools.      It  was  the  black  school    that   got 
burned. 

Lage:  And  this  was  the  time   of    the  Watts  riot,    wasn't  it? 

Kendrick:      It  was  about   the   time   of   the  Watts   riots,  yes.      The  school    that 
got  burned  was  the  one   that  our  youngsters  went   to.      Then  the 
question  became,   what  to  do?      We   could  rebuild  the  school   as  it 
was  and  go  on  as  if   nothing  had  taken  place,    or   try   to  do 
something  about   the   segregation.      This   board,   with  its  leadership 
and  the  school   administration,    really  moved  out  ahead  of   most  of 
California  at  that  time  and  designed  a  one-way   busing  system   to 
move  the  students  into  a  more  integrated  school   experience.      I 
must  admit  that  it  was  not  all   spontaneous  on  the   part   of    the 
school   board;  they   had  a  lot  of   noisy   sessions  in  which   the  black 
community  was   saying,    "You're  not   going  to  force   us   back  into 
this   situation  again."     So   there  was   a  lot  of   acrimony. 

Wilson  Riles  at  the  time  was  a  member  of   the  State 
Department  of   Education,    and  he  came  down  and  helped  counsel   the 
board  in  how   to  handle  this  problem.      The   one-way   busing  system 
was  designed  to  disperse   the  minorities  into  the  previously 
white-dominated  schools,   and  the  school   system  and   the   board 
members  spent  an  entire  summer  counseling  with  the  parents  of   the 
youngsters  in  those  receiving  schools,    preparing  them   for   this 
event.      It  was  a   tremendous  effort.      When  it  came  time  to  get  the 
busing  underway,    it  went  just  as  smoothly  as  it   could,    with  no 
adverse  events  that  we  were  aware  of. 

Lage:  Did  this  solve   the   problem   of    the  Hispanic  schools? 

Kendrick:      I  was   going  to  come   to  that.      The  Mexicans  did  not  really  want  to 
be   dispersed.      They  were   the  least  enthusiastic  about  losing 
their  sense   of   community.      The  two  areas  where  these  schools  were 
segregated  were  not   close  to  one  another.      The  Hispanic   Mexicans 
lived  in  an  area  called  Casa  Blanca.      While  it  was   not  an  area 
that  was  very   affluent,    it  had  a  lot   of   amenities   that   they  were 
proud  of.      It   did  have  a  feeling  of   community.      I   think  there  was 
some  sympathy  in  trying  to  preserve  that   sense   of   community,    but 


129 


Kendrick:      of   course  the   commitment  to   desegregate  the   segregated  schools 

was   pretty    strong,    and  to   the  extent   that   they    could,    they  bused 
them   into  a  more  integrated   situation. 

That  was  a  very    indelible  experience   as  far  as  the  board 
members  and  those   of   us  who  were  living  with  that   situation  were 
concerned.       Riverside   got  a  lot  of   publicity   over  it,    and  I    think 
it  was  a  feather  in  their   caps   to   be  able   to   say    that   they   faced 
up   to  an  issue   and  really   tried  to   do   something  about   it. 

Well,    Evelyn  was  re-elected.      It  was   not  a  very    close 
election.      And  she  was  embarked  upon  her  first   fully   elected 
four-year   term  and  really  enjoying  it  quite   thoroughly.      One  year 
she  and  a   school   board   colleague   found  themselves  active  in  the 
United   Fund   drive;    they    co-chaired   the  residential    campaign. 
That  was  just  another  example  of   the  kind  of   community 
involvement    that  we've   engaged   in. 


An  Unexpected  Job  Offer  from   President  Hitch 


Kendrick:      Then  came   the  rather  unexpected  invitation  to  me  to  meet  with 
President    [Charles]    Hitch  and  Harry  Wellman  one   afternoon 
following  a  meeting  of    this   Capital   Outlay   Review  Board    [CORE]  — 
one  of   the  systemwide  administrative   committees  on  which  I  served 
by  virtue    of   my  vice   chairmanship  of   the  Academic  Council   and 
Assembly.      The   board  was   chaired   by  Harry  Wellman. 

That  meeting,    I   think,    occurred  sometime  in  late  February   or 
early   March.      President  Hitch  asked  me  if   I  would   consider 
joining  his    staff   as  the  vice   president,    agricultural    sciences. 

Lage:  This  actual   invitation  was  not   something  you  were   prepared  for? 

Kendrick:     No.      I   didn't  have  any    idea  why    he  wanted  to  meet  with  me.      My 
mind  was   on,   as   I   think   I've    said  earlier,   what  was    going  to 
happen  to   the   College    of   Agricultural    Science   at  Riverside. 
Knowing  that  Boyce  was   going  to  retire  July  1,    and  in  February 
his   successor   had  not  been  designated,    my   focus  was  on  that 
position,    because    I  was  a   department    chair  with  five  years' 
experience   and  a  lot  of    activity   on  the   campus.      I   really   was 
concerned  about  who  might  be  the  next  leader,    and  was  fully 
prepared   to    say,     "Yes,     I'll   do   it,"  if   somebody   wanted  to  ask  me. 

In  those   days  extreme   search  committees  were  not  used,    and 
they    didn't  advertise   for   applicants   all    over   the  United  States. 
Faculty  advisory   committees  were   used  to  advise   the 
administration  when  they   were  trying  to  identify   candidates. 
That  was   pretty    standard.     But   there  was  not   a  lot   of 


130 


Kendrick:      advertising.       Candidates    generally    didn't   apply    for    positions. 

These    search   and  advise   committees  functioned  confidentially  and 
quietly  assembled  a  list  of   potential    candidates,    made 
evaluations,    after  looking  at   the  curriculum   vitaes,    and  all 
pertinent  information  they   could   gather  about   each    candidate. 
Ultimately,    the  committee  would  come  to  some  conclusions  and 
report  to  whomever  appointed  them  in  the  first   place.       I 
participated  on  several    of    those   myself,    such   as   for   the  vice 
chancellor  for  Riverside  and  others.      They   are  very   helpful 
committees  as  far  as  administration  is  concerned  because  they  do 
the  work  for  you.      They   screen  and   rank   the    candidates.       I 
presume  Hitch  and  Wellman  used  one   of    these   committees,    but   I  had 
no  idea  that   I  was  on  their  list  of   candidates  or  even  being 
considered   for   that   position. 

What  Harry  Wellman  said  to  me  at  the  00 RB   meeting  was, 
"Charlie  Hitch  would  like  to  meet  with  you  about  four   o'clock 
this  afternoon."     We  were  meeting  here  in  Berkeley.      This  was   in 
one  of   these  periods  when  I  was   all   over  the   state   nearly   every 
week.      The  CORB   plan  of   meetings   in  the  winter  and  early   spring 
was  to   go  to  every   campus  and  listen  to   the    campus   present   their 
capital    needs   for   the  next   budget. 

Well,    when  Harry    said,    "President  Hitch  would  like   to  meet 
you  at  four  o'clock,"  I  thought,    "Oh  no,    what  have   I    done   now?" 
[laughter]      Hitch  had  been  appointed  president   in  January    of 
1968.      The   previous  year  Harry  Wellman  had  been  acting  president 
after  dark  Kerr  had  been  relieved  of   his   presidency    the  previous 
January  in  1967.      That  was   the    period  when  I  was  fairly   active  in 
the  Academic   Council    and  on  the  statewide  budget  committee. 

Receiving  this   invitation   to  join    President   Hitch's 
administration  at   that  time  kind  of   hit  me  right  between  the 
eyes,    and    I    said,    "Well,    I'd   better    think  about   it."      It    sounded 
terrific  at  the  time;    I  was   so   surprised  that  I  had  to  reflect 
upon  it.     And  of   course  it  meant  a  major   change  was   being 
proposed  in  our  lives,    because  we  were  thoroughly  involved  in 
our  Riverside    connections,   and   I   felt   badly    that  it  would  disrupt 
Evelyn's  activities.       She  was  just  nicely   launched  in  the 
official   activities   of    the  school   board  and  a  recognized   citizen 
in  the  community. 

But   that  will   be   the  next   story.      It's  obvious  that  I 
decided  to  accept  and  moved  into  that  vice   presidency    the  first 
of  April  of  1968. 

Lage :  It's   interesting   that  with   this  method  of    selection,     there's   no 

interview  process. 

Kendrick:      There  wasn't  any    interview — 


131 


Lage:  To  see  what  your  view   of  matters  were,    and  what   direction  you 

wanted  to   take   it  in — 


Kendrick:      You're   right.       I   often  reflected  and  wondered  a  little  bit  about 
that.      That's    certainly   not  the  way  you    go  about  appointing 
people  now.      Now  you  bring  in  your   final    candidates  for 
interviews,    and  let   them   make   their   own   case.      But   I've   often 
wondered  if   Charlie  Hitch  had  any    real   thoughts  about  where  he 
wanted  the  agricultural   program   to   go,    or  if  he  had  any 
particular  thing  that  he  wanted  accomplished.      I  think  he  knew 
that  it  was   a  fairly  large  and   significant  internal    organization, 
but  he  had  Harry   Wellman  to  advise  him  about   the  agricultural 
needs  and  how    to  put  its  administration  together. 

He  had  also  at  that  time  identified  whom   he  wanted  as  his 
successor  to  Harry  Wellman  as   the  vice   president,    and   that  was 
Jack  Oswald.      Jack  Oswald  at  that  time  was  president  of   the 
University   of   Kentucky.      Jack,    as   I  related  in  an  earlier 
interview,    was  one   of   my    father's  early   graduate   students,    and 
another   plant   pathologist.      The   two  of   us  had  had  a   close,    almost 
family,    relationship.      So  as   far  as   Charlie  Hitch  was   concerned, 
by  bringing  to  a  very   top-level   administrative   position  somebody 
who   understood  agriculture,    he  didn't  really   have   to  pay   personal 
attention  to   that  area   of  his  responsibility.      All   he   needed  was 
somebody   down  at  the  operational   level   who  came  from  agriculture 
and,    I   guess,    who  was  not    controversial.      I   think  at   that   point, 
I  was   pretty   noncontroversial   because  nobody  knew  what  position  I 
would   take   on  agricultural    issues. 

Lage:  Even  yourself? 

Kendrick:      I   hadn't   even  thought  about   it.       I   described  for   President  Hitch 
what   I  was  trying  to  do  with  the   department  at  Riverside   to 
broaden  its  outlook  on  its  immediate  problems,    to  introduce  a 
capacity  to  pursue   the   basic  aspects   of   research   that  were 
related  to   the  department,    and  to  pay   attention  to  its  mission. 
But    I  really  hadn't   given  much   thought   to  where    I  felt   the 
University's   total    agricultural    program    ought    to  be   headed. 

There  was  a  little   discussion  about   that  in  the  interview 
[laughs],    and  I   suppose   if   I   had  been  a   complete  bust  in  terms  of 
not   being  very  articulate,    completely   devoid   of   ideas,    that  he 
could  have  backed  off  without   saying,    "Well,     I   think  you're  the 
one  we'd  like   to  have  run  this   program."     But    I  have  reflected   a 
little  bit   on  my   experience  with  CORE   and  some  discussions  with 
Harry  Wellman — 

Lage:  Recently? 


132 


Kendrick:      No,    not  recently,    but  in  trying  to  figure   out   "why   me?"      I'm 

really  kind  of    ahead  of    my    Riverside   experience   here,    but   not   too 
much — I  wanted  to  mention  that  in  addition  to   the   Kiwanis    dub. 
the  church,    the  Victoria  dub,    that  I  was  trying  to  be   a  good 
father  for  my   son.      I  was  active  in  the  YMCA  and   the   Indian  Guide 
Program,    which  was  a  father-son  program,    in  Little  League 
baseball,    in  trout  fishing,    and  other  activities — 

Lage :  I   don't  know   how  you  did  it  all,    frankly. 

Kendrick:     — that  fathers  and  mothers  try   to  participate  in  with   their 

children.  Well,  you  do  it  because  you're  young.  You  don't  run 
out  of  energy.  When  I  look  back  on  it  now,  I  just  don't  have  the 
energy  to  put  into  that  sort  of  thing  anymore.  But  it  actually 
was  a  fun  time  of  our  lives.  We  were  totally  engaged  in  useful 
community  associations  as  well  as  in  a  lot  of  fun  social  events 
and  a  very  satisfying  professional  career. 

Now,    to  finish   the  thought   that   I  had  on  my   reflections  on 
some   conversations  with  Harry  Wellman.      Most  of   us   thought   that 
the  obvious   candidate  to  succeed  Maurice   Peterson  as  the 
University  dean  of  agriculture  was   the   dean  at  Davis,    James 
Meyer.      We  didn't  quite  understand  why   things   dragged  on  so  long 
and  why  his  appointment  was  held  up. 

One  time  during  a  lunch  hour,    Harry  and  I  were  walking 
somewhere,   and  he  asked  me  where  I  thought  the  headquarters  of 
the   division  ought   to  be  located.      Then  Harry   went   on  and  said, 
"Do  you  think  it   could  function   effectively   at   Davis?"     I    said, 
"Well,    I  suppose   it   could  function — "  I   recall  very   vividly   my 
response.       I   said,    "I  expect  it   could  function  effectively    almost 
anywhere  you  put  it,    and  certainly  could  operate  well   from 
Davis.  " 

I   said,    "I   think  there  is  one   problem  with  locating  it  at 
Davis,    and  that  is  that  Riverside  will   feel    that   they   always  are 
going  to  get  what's  left  over.      That  may  not  be   the  case,    but   the 
appearance  and   the   perception  is    going  to   be   there.      They   have 
struggled  mightily   to  try   and   get  out   from   under  the  notion  that 
Riverside  is  sort  of   second-best  and  it  would  like   to  be 
recognized  on  its  own  without   comparisons.      If   the  headquarters 
for  the  division  were  at  Davis,    there  is  just  no  way   to  avoid   the 
fact   that  it  will   appear  to  be   disadv  ant  aged.      At  least  where   the 
division's   office   is   now,    in   the    President's   Office,    Riverside 
feels  it  has  equal    standing  with  Berkeley   and  Davis  when  its 
needs  are   being   considered."     And,    of    course,    it  was  well   known 
that  Al  Boyce   as  the  director  of    the  Citrus  Experiment  Station, 
and  the   dean  of    the   college,  was  very   persuasive  and  successful 
in  presenting  his   case   for   resources,    often  outbidding  the  other 
two   campuses   for  support   of   a    program,    a   position,    or  a  building. 


133 


Kendrick:      And   then   that  was   the  end   of    the    conversation.      Harry    didn't    say, 
"I   think  you' re  right."    He  was  j  ust  f  ishir.g.     And  I,   in 
reflection,    think   the   position  of  vice   president  was   offered   to 
Jim   Meyer,    who,    true   to  his   conviction  to   this   day,    felt   that  the 
headquarters  for   the   division  ought   to  be  on  the   Davis    campus, 
and  made   that  a   condition  of   his  acceptance   of    the  appointment. 

Lage:  But  you   don't   know    that  for  a  fact? 

Kendrick:      I've   never   talked   to  Jim  about   this,    and  I'm  just    speculating 

about  that  matter.      Jim  was  never  very  reluctant   to  express  his 
views  that   the  Davis   campus   ought   to  house   the  headquarters  of 
the    division.      And  as   a  matter   of   fact,    at   the   tail   end  of   my 
activity,    we  had  planned  to  move   parts  of    the  University's 
division  administration  to  the  Davis   campus,   with  support  from 
President   David  Gardner.      We'd   better   not   get   into   that   today. 

Lage:  Harry  Wellman  apparently   didn't  want   the   division  to  move   to 

Davis? 

Kendrick:  No.  Harry  did  not  want  to  headquarter  it  at  Davis.  And  for  what 
reason  I  don't  know — maybe  the  same  reason  that  I  have  indicated. 
I  think  it's  a  persuasive  reason,  and  I  have  always  felt  that  the 
division's  leadership,  top  leadership,  needed  to  be  a  part  of  the 
President's  Office  as  long  as  there  was  a  committment  to  have  it 
led  by  a  vice  president. 

#1 

On  the  other   hand,    Claude   Hutchison,    the  longtime   dean  of 
agriculture,    specifically   set  out  to  make  Davis   the  headquarters 
for   the  agriculture  program    of    the  University.      They   went   so  far 
as   to   design  the  headquarters   building  for   the   university    dean  on 
the  Davis   campus.      The  buildings   never  got  built,    but   all   of   the 
plans  were   in  motion  for  it.      I   think   I've  read   some   of   the 
history   that   points  that  out.      There  are  a  lot  of   long  memories 
in  Davis,    and  they  have  felt   they  were   promised   that 
agriculture's  management  and  leadership  would  be   on  that  campus, 
and   that  it  was   blocked  or   stopped  for  various  reasons.      Fart   of 
it  was  financial,    part  of   it  was  political,    and  part  was 
intrigue,     I'm    sure. 

But   nevertheless,    there  was  a   change   in  plans,    and  it's 
always  been  a  source  of  tension  between  the   systemwide 
administration  of    the  agricultural   program  and  the  Davis  campus 
administration.      And   there  has   been  an  interesting  tension  also 
in  Riverside,    as   people  loyal    to  that  campus   strongly   advise  and 
work  diligently  to  be  sure   that   the  headquarters    does  not  move   to 
the   Davis    campus. 

Lage:  Where   does  the  Berkeley    campus   fit  into  all   of    this? 


13A 


Kendrick:      Berkeley   tends  to   support   the  view    that   the  headquarters  ought   to 
be    in  University    Hall,    but   they   don't  feel   nearly   as   threatened 
by   it.       I   think  it's   because   the  agricultural    program    or.   the 
Berkeley   campus   is  a   relatively  small  part  of   the  total   campus 
program.      At   Riverside,    it's  a    significant   part   of    the    total 
activity,    and  if   they    were  to  somehow   lose   their  resources,    or 
have  them   cut  back,    or   not  have  any    sympathy    towards   their   needs, 
they'd   be    in   real    trouble. 


135 


VII      THE    FINAL    YEARS   AT  RIVERSIDE 


Representing   the  University-Wide    Faculty   during  Years   of 
Turbulence 

[Date   of    Interview:      October  6.    1987]    ## 


Kendrick:      I  want  to  talk  further   about    that  last  year   or    two  in   Riverside 
to  explain  why   I   didn't  arrive  in  the  systemwide  administration 
with  any   fixed  agenda.      In  reviewing   the  record,    I  find   that   my 
statewide   senate  responsibilities  were  a  little  more  extensive 
than   I  earlier  had  indicated.      In  '66 — '67,     I  was   a  member   of    the 
Academic   Council.      And  then  in  '67-'68,    I  was   the  vice   chairman 
of    the   council,    expecting  during  '68- '69    that    I   would   chair   the 
council   and  assume  all  the  responsibilities  that  the  systemwide 
senate   chairman  had  with   the   President's  Office  and  his 
administration.      The  duties  were   often  divided  between  the  chair 
and  the  vice   chairman  in  such   a  way   that   they  kept   both   of   us 
busy,    but   not   necessarily  by  simultaneously  attending  the  same 
meetings  except  for  meetings  of   the  Regents,    the  Academic   Council 
and  the  Academic  Assembly. 

Robley  Williams  was   the  chairman  of    the  Academic,  Council   in 
'67-'68.      Robley  was   professor   of   biochemistry,    and  a  member   of 
the   faculty    in   the  Virus  Laboratory    here   in  Berkeley.      Both   of   us 
were  appointed  members  on  the  administration's  Budget  Review 
Committee  and  the  Capital  Outlay  Review  Board.      Those  bodies  were 
busy  in  the  late  fall  and  spring  because   the  University  was 
building   the   record  for    the   next  year's  budget   requests.      The 
faculty  participated  in  that   process   through   the  appointments   of 
the  chair  and  the  vice   chair   to  those  administrative  committees. 
That  experience  provided  me  with  a   good   deal    of   practical   exposure 
to  just   how    the  University  budget  was  constructed  and  who  made   the 
decisions    concerning  it.       I  quickly   found  out   that  Vice    President 
Wellman  was   the  one  who  had  great  influence   in  the  outcome  of   the 
President's    decisions.       I  had  known  from   previous   observations 
that  he  was   really   a  very   good  administrator  and  quite  competent 
in   sorting  out   the  real   needs    of    the   entire  University. 


136 


f* 

Lage:  I  would  like  you  to  make  a  few   comments  about  your  experience 

with   the  Board   of  Regents   before  we   get   into   the  vice   presidency. 

Kendrick:      I   was   mostly  a   sideline   observer  as  the  vice   chairman  of   the 

Academic   Council    in  '67-'68,    which  was   the  year  following  Clark 
Kerr's    dismissal    as   president,    in  January,    1967,    soon  after 
Ronald  Reagan   took   office  as    governor. 

Lage:  Harry   Wellman  was  acting  president  in  1967,    and  Charles  Hitch 

came  as   president   in  January,    1968. 

Kendrick:      Yes.      Charlie  Hitch  was  at   that   time  vice   president   for  business 
and  finance.      The  Regents  initiated  a   search  for  a   successor   to 
Kerr,    which   took  a  while   to  complete.      So   during  that  year  Harry 
occupied   the   President's  Office,    in  kind   of   a   dual    capacity   as 
his  own  vice   president  as  well   as   the  acting  president   of   the 
University.      He   never  was   given   the   title   of    President   of   the 
University,    however.      The  decision  to  appoint   Charlie  Hitch 
president  was  made  at  a  meeting  of    the  Regents  at  UCLA   that    I 
attended. 

Lage:  Did  the  Academic  Council   have  any  kind  of    advisory    role  in  the 

selection? 


Kendrick:      They    certainly   did.       Not   the   council   per   se,    but   the  faculty   did. 
There  was  a  specially  appointed   group   of  faculty  who   served  on 
that   selection  committee  and  participated  in  the  review   of 
candidates.      So  faculty   participation  was   strong  even  at   that 
time.      After  Vice   President   Charles  Hitch  was  asked  to  assume  the 
presidency  on   the  first   of  January,   1968,   he  asked  Harry  Wellman 
to  help  him   as  his  vice   president   until   he  could  identify  a  more 
permanent  appointment.      Harry   did,    but   Harry  had   officially   re 
tired  by   the   time,    so   in  a   sense  he  was   recalled  to  active   duty. 

All   of   this  took  place  at   the    same    time   that   there  was   a 
vacancy    in  the  university   deanship  of   agriculture,    which  was   the 
period  when  Harry  was   the  acting  president.      He  wasn't  about,    I 
guess,    to  make  any  permanent  commitment  to  the  administration  of 
agriculture   until    the   presidency   situation  was   settled.      Which 
accounts,    as  we've   said  earlier,    for  why   the  vacancy   just   sort   of 
disappeared  from   sight — at  least  in   my   mind  it    did.      Charlie 
quickly   assembled  a   group  of   vice   presidents   to  support  his 
administration.      I   don't   know  whether  initially   there  were   seven 
or  nine   of   us;    there  were  quite  a  few.      At  one   time  we  had  nine 
vice   presidents.     We  used  to  refer  to  the  fact   that  we  had  a 
baseball   team   of   vice   presidents.      At   another   time  in  my  career 
we  had  a  basketball   team   of  vice   presidents,    when  we  were   down  to 
five.      We   never  had  fewer  than  five  vice   presidents  during  my 
time   in   the    President's    Office. 


137 


Lage:  These   changes  were  made   by   the  various   presidents? 

Kendrick:      The   changes   occurred  with   the  various    presidents,    to  reflect 

their   concepts  of   the  kind  of  vice   presidential   administration 
they    wanted. 

As   I   said  earlier,    Jack  Oswald  was  asked  by   President  Hitch 
to  return  to   the  University   of   California  as   his  executive  vice 
president.      Jack's   selection  as   executive  vice    president,    at   the 
time   I  was  invited  to   become   the  vice   president  for  agriculture, 
had  some   persuasive  influence   in  my  own  decision  because   I 
looked  forward  to  working  with  him  as  a   part   of   the   President's 
Office. 

Lage:  You  went  way   back  with  him. 

Kendrick:      Yes,    our   relationship  went   back  to  about    1940,    when  he  arrived   to 
enroll   in   graduate  school  at   Davis.      So  it  was  an  added 
inducement  for  me   to  make   up  my   mind  to  take   the  vice   presidency. 


Producing  an  Academic    Plan  for  Riverside 


Kendrick:      But  before  we  get  into   the  vice   presidency,    I  want   to   describe 
another  activity  at  Riverside  which  kept  my  attention  away   from 
the  vacancies  in  the  university-wide  administration.      What  was 
happening  at  Riverside  kept   my   attention  focused  there  because  it 
was  of  more  immediate   concern  and  had  a  greater  potential   impact 
on  my    future  role   on  the  Riverside   campus. 

Within  a  year  or  two  after  Ivan  Hinderaker  was  appointed  to 
succeed  Herman  Spieth  as   chancellor   of   the  Riverside  campus,    he 
appointed  a   committee  to  draw  up  an  academic   plan  for  Riverside, 
and  I  was  asked  to  serve  on  that  committee.      That  committee  was 
chaired  by   Professor    [Donald]    Sawyer,    who  was  a   professor   of 
chemistry    in   the  Department   of   Chemistry,    in  the  Division  of 
Physical   Sciences.      That  was  an  experience    that    I  valued  highly 
because   it   complemented  the  assignment  that  Chancellor  Spieth  had 
given  me  earlier  in  1959   to   design  a   physical   development   plan 
for   the  campus  which   planned  to  reach   a  student  body   size  of 
5,000   students,    without    overlooking   the  fact   that  in   due   course 
it   would   go   to   10,000   students. 

Participating  in  a  committee  that  was  giving  attention  to 
academic  planning,    which  really   should  have  been   completed   before 
discussing  a   plan  for   physical   development,    was  an  opportunity   to 
add  to  my  experience.      It  was   also  a   bonus  to  me   because   the 
committee  membership  was  drawn  mostly  from   the  faculty  of   the 
College  of  Letters  and  Science.      There  were   one   or   two   of   us  from 


138 


Kendrick:      agriculture;  we  were   called  aggie   faculty.      It   also   gave  me  an 
opportunity    to  think  more  deeply  and  more  comprehensively  about 
undergraduate  education.      Some   of   us   traveled  to  other 
institutions   to  look  at  some   innovative   programs.      I   recall   going 
to  Wisconsin  with  a  colleague  to  look  at    some  University 
Extension  programs   they   had  back  there.      We  produced  what  I 
thought  was   really  a   challenging  and   good  report,    but  it    didn't 
cause   much  more   than  a   ripple   on  the  pond. 

Lage:  Why  was   that,    do  you  think? 

Kendrick:      I  wish   I  knew. 

Lage:  Did  you  propose   anything  that  was   unusual   or — ? 

Kendrick:      No,    but  I  guess  we  were  too  early  for  our    times.      What  we   really 
were   proposing  was   some  emphasis  on  general   education.      And  since 
undergraduate  education  is   the  hot   topic  today — 

Lage:  They   might   go   back  to  that  plan. 

Kendrick:  No,  the  one  thing  the  faculty  does  not  do  well  is  to  go  back  to 
earlier  reports.  They  prefer  to  look  ahead.  They  think  highly 
of  libraries,  but  they  don't  think  very  highly  of  past  academic 
plans.  The  plans  are  only  valuable  as  historical  records. 

Lage:  So  it  was  more   of   a  learning  experience  for  you   than — 

Kendrick:      I   think  the  assignment  was  good  for   the  committee  members,   but 
the   plan  didn't  have  much  impact  on  our   colleagues  who  were 
expected  to  implement   it.      That's  a   peculiarity   of   plans,    and 
it's  followed  me  in  all   of   my  experience.     Academic   plans  have  a 
brief   period  of    influence,    and  the  biggest   influence    they    have  is 
on  the   people  who   develop   the   plan.      If    the   people  who  were 
engaged  in  developing  the  plan  wind  up  with  some  administrative 
responsibility,    then  the   plan  may  have  an  impact.      But   if  you're 
just   producing  a   plan  for   somebody  else  who  has  the 
responsibility   for   implementation,    forget   it.      I    don't    think   it's 
worth  the   time  it   takes   to  put   it  all   together. 

Lage:  And  producing  an  academic   plan  was  your  first   charge,   you   said, 

as  you  came   into   the  vice    presidency. 

Kendrick:      That's   right,    and   I've   got   some   things   to    say   about    that    because 
it   proves   my   point. 


139 


Value    of    Shared  Governance 


Kendrick:      Well,    that   committee  was  followed  soon  by  another  committee  that 
Chancellor  Hinderaker   put   together  to   study   the  reorganization  of 
the   College   of  Letters  and  Science.      The  College   of  Letters   and 
Science   still   consisted  of   the  four  major   divisions,    that  was   put 
together  by   Provost  Watkins  and  his  advisory   group.      But   the 
college   seemed  overly  organized  for   the  numbers   of   students 
enrolled  at  that   time,    so  there  needed  to  be   some  sort  of 
amalgamation,   and  the   chancellor  instituted  the   committee  to 
study    the  potential    amalgamation  of    the  units. 

That  committee  came  up  with  a  recommendation  that    I  thought 
was   brilliant   and   supported  thoroughly.       I   didn't  have  any   direct 
input  to  the  committee  because   I  was  not  asked  to   serve  on  it.      I 
would  willingly   have   done   so,    if  asked,    but  I  was  pretty   involved 
in   university-wide  responsibilities    then,     so  it's   easy    to 
understand  why    these  kinds   of   assignments  were  passed  around  as 
much  as   possible.      I   think  I  recall    that  we   discussed  earlier  why 
a  few    of   us   became   so  involved  in   so  many   things  at  Riverside. 
It  was  because  the   campus  was  small,    the  faculty  was  relatively 
of   a   small   size,    the  numbers  of   senior  faculty   were  even  smaller, 
but  the   senate  organization  and   the  administrative   needs  were 
just  as  complicated  and  the  committees  were  just  as  numerous  as 
they  were  on  large   campuses  where  they  had  a  lot   of   people   to 
share  in  those  many    responsibilities.     You  would  never  find 
somebody  on  the  Berkeley  campus  or   the  UCLA  campus   being  exposed 
to  as  many   things   as  I  was  on  the  Riverside   campus.      The  fact 
that  we  didn't  have  enough   people  to   go  around  to   serve   in   those 
different   capacities  at  Riverside   meant   that  a   few   of  us  had  to 
serve  in  a  lot  of   different   capacities  from    time  to   time.      And  in 
the  long  run,    it  worked  out   to  my  advantage  by   giving  me  a 
practical   education  in  most  aspects   of  how    the  University   runs, 
how    it's   organized,    and  how   decision-making  evolves.      It  was  a 
better    orientation  and   practical    training   ground   than   I    could 
have  received  in  any  well-organized  managerial   workshop,    that  you 
might  find  in  a   business   school    or  another    group  responsible  for 
training   administrators. 

Lage :  Your  background  touched  on  every   area   in  this   system   of   shared 

governance. 

Kendrick:      Yes.      It  also   gave  me  an  understanding  and  appreciation  for   the 
value   of    the  faculty,    and   the  role   that   the  faculty   can   play   in 
the  shared  governance   of   the  administration  of    the  University   of 
California.      I  have  always  held  in  high  regard  faculty 
participation  in  these   kinds   of    decisions.      The  faculty   doesn't 
make  any  decisions,    but  they  sure  let  you  know   about   bum 
decisions  you  might  make,    or  try   to  persuade  you  into  making 
decisions    that — 


140 


Lage:  They   give   a  lot   of   formal   advice. 

Kendrick:      It's    advise    and   consent,    just   like    the  U.S.     Senate.       It's   advice 
you  ignore  at  your    peril.      They   can  make  life  miserable  for  you 
if  you  treat   them   lightly,    but   there  is   no  reason  to  do   so.      You 
recognize   the  faculty   prejudices,   and   if  you   give   them   their 
chance    to   contribute,    they'll    respect   you   for   it,    and   they'll 
understand  if  you  have  to  make   different    choices.      So   I   never 
felt   that   I  was   disadvantaged  by   taking  things    to  the  faculty  and 
asking  their   participation  in  helping  me  administer   the 
responsibility    that   I   had. 


The  College   of   Natural   and  Agricultural    Sciences: 
Cons  for  Agricultural    Research 


Pros  and 


Kendrick:      Well,    the  reorganization  committee  came  up  with  a  scheme  to 
amalgamate  all   the  science  units  into  one   college;    all    the 
science   units,    that   is,    except   the  Department   of    Psychology, 
which  was  an  experimental   psychology   department  rather   than  a 
social    psychology    group.       They   didn't  want   to  foresake    their 
liberal    arts    origin,    I    guess. 

Lage:  They   stayed  with   social   sciences? 

Kendrick:      They   stayed  with   social   sciences.     But   the  recommendation,   and 
ultimately   the  action,    resulted  in  the  formation  of   the  College 
of  Natural  and  Agricultural  Sciences,    which  was  euphemistically 
referred  to  in  kind  of   an  uncomplimentary   way  as  the  College   of 
Nags.      The   units  included  in   that    college  were   taken   both  from 
the   physical   sciences  and  the  life   sciences.      It   included   the 
departments   of   physics,    chemistry,    statistics,   mathematics, 
geology,    and  since    there  were  no  departments  in  life  sciences 
such  as  zoology,    bacteriology,    microbiology,    or   botany,    it  was 
incorporated  as   a  Department   of   Biology. 

Lage:  Did   they   departmentalize   this  later? 

Kendrick:      Yes. 

Lage:  But   that  was  after  your    time. 

Kendrick:      That  was  after  my   time.      As  a  matter   of   fact,    they  later   created 
a   Department   of    Plant   Sciences  and  moved  all   the  botanists  out  of 
the   biology   group  into   the   Department   of    Plant   Sciences,    so   the 
Department   of    Plant   Sciences  at  Riverside   consists  of   experiment 
station  horticulturalists,    agronomists,    pure   botanists,    plant 
physiologists,    and   the  like.      It   is   former  Dean  W.    Mack  Bugger's 
home   department. 


141 


Kendrick:      Well,    I'm   a  little  ahead  of   my   story.      That   amalgamation  was  to 
take    place  July   1    of    1968.      It's  easy    to  understand  why    my 
attention  was  on  what  was   going  to  happen  at   Riverside  and  how 
that  was   going  to  affect   the  Department   of   Plant  Pathology,    and 
how   that  might  affect  Jim  Kendrick,   and  what  role   I  might  have  in 
bringing  that  recommendation  into  fruition. 

Lage:  What  effect   did  the  amalgamation  eventually  have  on  the 

experiment  station? 

Kendrick:      One   of    the  assets  of    the  amalgamation  was  that  it  involved  the 
experiment   station  members  of   the  College   of  Agriculture,    the 
forerunner   of    the  new   college,    in  a  viable  undergraduate  program 
for    the  first   time.      It   brought   a  lot   of  attention  to 
undergraduate   education  into  that   unit,    because   those   units  which 
were  formerly  in  the  life  and  physical   sciences  had  large 
undergraduate  enrollments,    while  the  departments  in  the  College 
of  Agricultural  Sciences  had   been  largely   concerned  with   graduate 
programs. 

Well,    the  viability   of    the  College   of   Nags — Natural    and 
Agricultural   Sciences — was  not   threatened,   but  it   certainly  had 
an  effect   on  its  reception  by   both  the  agricultural   members  of 
the  unit  and  the  external  farmer   constituency  which  were 
accustomed  to  being  served  by   the  agricultural    research  group  in 
the   Citrus  Experiment  Station — which  by   that  time  had  been 
renamed  the  Citrus  Research  Center.      While   this  amalgamated 
organization  was   theoretically   sound,    in  my  judgment,    it   didn't 
result   in  very   many   practical   accomplishments  as  far  as 
agriculture  was   concerned,    because   I'm   not   aware   of  very  many 
undergraduate   students   coming  out   of    the  College   of  Natural   and 
Agricultural  Sciences  with  a  commitment  to  a  career  in  the 
agricultural   sciences. 

Lage:  You   didn't   get  many   students  to  go   on  in   graduate   school   under 

the  agricultural   program? 

Kendrick:      No.      There  were  a  few    people  in  agriculture  already   who  did  not 
have  an  undergraduate   degree,   who  enrolled  and   got   the  Bachelor 
of    Science   degree  in  that   college,    but   I   don't   think  that   we 
enticed  very  many  students  who  had  enrolled  in  that   college  as 
undergraduates   to  pursue   agricultural    subjects.      Probably   that 
was   because   the  faculty   in  the  agriculture   departments    didn't 
really   participate  very   much   in  undergraduate   instruction.      So  it 
was  not  just  a  lack  of   student  interest;   you   can  attribute   some 
of    the  failure  to  reach  undergraduates   to  the  lack  of 
undergraduate   teaching  participation  by    the   older,    traditional 
agricultural    faculty,    as  well   as   the  fact   that   those   faculty 
members  who   came  from   the  College   of  Letters  and  Science  weren't 
about   to   suggest   that   their  undergraduate   students   pursue 
agricultural   subjects.      They  wanted   the   good  students  to   go  on  in 


142 


Kendrick:      their   own  fields   of   science.      So  all   in  all,    the   big   challenge 
was   to   try  and  amalgamate  into  a  productive  unit   two  very 
different   kinds   of   faculties.      It  was   initially  an  organizational 
marriage   of   convenience   rather   than  a  rich  educational 
experience. 

I   thought   this  reorganized  college   was   going  to  be   first- 
class  because  it   contained   the   elements   of    the   kind   of 
undergraduate   preparation  that   I   had  had  in  Berkeley    in  the 
College  of  Letters  and  Science  in  the  magnificent  major   called 
general   curriculum.      I  never  felt   that   I   suffered  any    in  my 
preparation  for   my    career. 

Lage:  Your   comments  remind  me  a  little  bit  of   some  of  the  things  Henry 

Vaux  said  about   the   College   of  Natural   Resources,    the  formation 
of    that.      He  had  high  hopes  that   the   reorganization,     restructur 
ing,    would  lead  to  a  rethinking  of  subject  matter,    with  more 
interdisciplinary   thrusts. 

Kendrick:      Didn1 t  work. 

Lage:  But   people  just  went   on  as   they   had.      The  changes   were 

structural,    just  an  administrative   reorganization. 

Kendrick:      Exactly,    it  was  an  administrative   convenience.      That's  about   all 
it  was.      You're  right.      Henry   is  one   of    the  wisest  men   I   ever  had 
the   good  fortune    to  have   as   a   colleague.      He's   a   keen   observer. 

Lage:  Yes,   he  is. 


Administrative  Organization  of   College   and  Experiment   Station 


Kendrick:      The  next   problem   facing  this  amalgamation  was  to  find  leadership. 
The  traditional  agricultural   constituency  was  not   all    that 
thrilled  about   this  amalgamation.      They    felt — it   turns  out    they 
were  right — that  this  would  divert   the  attention  of    the  faculty 
in  the  experiment   station  away   from   their  needs.      The 
amalgamation  had  another   effect  on  the   program   of   the  experiment 
station  in  that   the  addition  of   new    faculty   in  the  experiment 
station  took  a  little   different   twist   because  young  men  and  women 
who  were  more  compatible  with  the  goals  of   College   of   Letters  and 
Science-type  faculty   than  they  were  with  the  fully   committed 
research   faculty   that   the  experiment   station  had  traditionally 
added  to  its  faculty   were  recruited. 

Also,     faculty   are  quick  learners.      They    learn  that   they   get 
ahea<'  almost  exclusively  by  how  many   good  fundamental   research 
papers   they    publish   in  their  professional    refereed  journals,    and 


143 


Kendrick:      not  how  many  field  plots   they  put  out,    from  which  it   is    difficult 
to  accumulate  very    many   good  professional   journal    articles.       It's 
certainly   possible  to   do   so,   but  it   takes   a  longer   period   of    time 
to  accomplish.      You  usually   can  have   only   one   crop  a  year,    or   one 
birth   cycle   per  year  if  you're  working  with  farm  animals.      If 
you're   a  citrus   breeder,    you  have   to  wait   several   years   to  get  a 
crop  and  find  out  what  you've    got.      That's   not    the   kind   of 
research   program   that  gets  you  ahead  in  the  academic  world. 

So   that  had  an  influence  on  the  attention   that   the  faculty 
was   giving  to  the  citrus,    ornamental,    vegetable,    field  crop,    and 
soil   irrigation  problems  which  characterized   the   southern 
Californian   agriculture    scene. 

The  man  ultimately   selected  to  be   the  dean  was  Professor 
Willie   Mack  Dugger.      It's  not  William;    it's  Willie.      A   professor 
of   plant   physiology,    he  came   to  Riverside  from  Florida   to 
investigate    the    plant    physiological    disturbances    caused   by    smog. 
So  he  really   was   brought   there  in  an  agricultural   program. 

Lage:  Was  he   part   of    that   air   pollution   group? 

Kendrick:      He  was   part   of    the  Air  Pollution  Research   Center — that  was  Mack's 
area  of   affiliation — but  he   also  had  a  faculty  appointment   in   the 
Division  of  Life   Sciences.      There  again,    we  return  to  the   small 
orbit  that  the  academic  community  finds  itself  in  sometimes, 
because   Mack  Dugger  was  a  member  of   that  plant  physiology 
graduate  course   that   Dan  Aldrich  and  Jim  Kendrick  took  in  1942   in 
Madison,    Wisconsin. 

And  you  all   ended  up  at   the  University    in  administrative  roles. 

Yes.      We  didn't  learn  much  administration  while  we  were   there  in 
that   particular  course    [laughter].     His  appointment  was  not 
really  received  with  much  enthusiasm  by   the  agricultural 
constituency   because  he  was   unknown  to  them.      Even  though  he  had 
as  much  agriculture   background  as    I  had,    he  wasn't  fortunate 
enough   to  be   identified  with  an  agricultural   department.      He  was 
in  the  Division  of  Life   Sciences,    while    I  was   in  an  aggie 
department    called   plant   pathology. 

If 

Kendrick:     By   that  time  the  constituency  persuaded  Hinderaker  and  Wellman 
that   they  would   be   better   off,    when  appointing  Dean  Boyce's 
successor,    to  separate   the  deanship  from    the  associate 
directorship   of    the  Agricultural  Experiment   Station.      It  was 
customary    to  have   the  dean  and  the  associate   director  of   the 
experiment    station  one  and   the    same   person.     One   of    the 
University   of    California's   confusing  anomalies  was   that  there  was 
no  director   of    the   Citrus  Research   Center   because   the    center  was 


Lage: 
Kendrick : 


144 


Kendrick :      merely  one   of   the  units   of    the  University-wide  Agricultural 

Experiment   Station.      Deans  also   carried  the   titles  of    associate 
director  of   the  Agricultural   Experiment   Station   serving  under    the 
director   of    the  AES   in  a   capacity   similar  to  a  member  of   a  board 
of   directors   of    the  experiment   station. 

The  confusion  developed  because   as   I   said  there  was  no 
director   of    this   Citrus  Research  Center,    but  rather  an  associate 
director  University-wide,    who  was  responsible  for  the  local  unit 
and  who  was  resident  at  Riverside.      The   Citrus  Research   Center 
and  its   predecessor   the  Citrus  Experiment   Station  had  gained  a 
worldwide  reputation  of   its  own.      So  it  was   often   perceived   by 
those   outside    the  University   as  a   separate   unit  from   the 
University's   Agricultural    Experiment    Station. 

Lage:  It  had  more  of   an  identity   than  just  as  a  local   unit  of   the 

Agricultural  Experiment   Station. 

Kendrick:      It  had  an  identity    all   its  own.      That   provided   confusion  as  far 
as  our  internal  administration  was   concerned  because  we   did  not 
have  multiple   experiment   stations,    we  only  had  units  of    the 
single  University  experiment    station.      The    sign  on  the   Citrus 
Research   Center   door   said,    "Associate  Director   of    the  Citrus 
Research  Center  and  Agricultural   Experiment   Station."     Visitors 
would  be   confused  because   they   expected  to  meet  the  person  in 
charge,   who   presumably  was  a   director.      Some  would   say,    "Well, 
we're   not   really    interested   in  seeing  the  associate   director, 
we'd  like  to   see   the   director.      Where  is  he?"     The  answer  was, 
"Well,     the   director    is   Clarence   Kelly,    and  he's   in  Berkeley." 

So  it  was  a  tough   thing  for  Al  Boyce   to   deal  with,    and  it 
was  not   really   any   easier  for   his   successor   to  deal    with. 

Lage:  I  would  think  the   combination  of   the   two  jobs  would   be    difficult, 

the  deanship  of    the  college   and  the  associate   directorship  of    the 
station. 

Kendrick:      The  way   the  responsibility    is   really   discharged  is   that  you  have 
an  associate   dean  for   research  and  an  associate   dean  for   resident 
instruction. 


Lage:  So   there's   really   someone   else  who's   running  the  Citrus   Research 

Center. 

Kendrick:      That's   right.       The   dean   and  associate   director   has   the  overall 

responsibility   but    does   not    pay   day-to-day   attention   to    the    affairs. 
of    the   experiment    station.      There  is   an  associate   dean  to  do    that. 

Lage:  So  the  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  is   a  more   centralized 

operation  than   the   other   units  of    the  University. 


145 


Kendrick:      Yes.       It's   really    the   only    centralized   research   operation   that 
the  University    maintains. 

Well,    to  solve  the  dilemma  of   the  presumed  lack  of 
agricultural  association  that  was  attributed  to   Mack  Bugger,    the 
administration  decided  to  ask  Boysie  Day,    also  a   professor   of 
plant   physiology,   who  was  a  member  of   the  Department   of 
Horticulture,    however,    a  fully  acknowledged  agricultural 
department,   and  who  had  a  lot   of  field  research  experience,   to 
assume   the  associate   directorship.      It   separated  the  role   of    dean 
from  associate    director  at   Riverside,   in   contrast,   to   that  which 
existed  at  Berkeley   and  Davis.      It   provided  a   bit   of   confusion 
because  it  was  not  really   all    that   clear  on  what  issues  Associate 
Director   Day    sought  Director  Kelly's  advice   and  on  what   issues  he 
sought   Mack  Dugger's  advice,   and  when  he  was  responsible   to 
Dugger  and  when  he  was   responsible   to  Kelly.      Boysie,    being 
pretty  much  a  self-starter  and  a  very   capable  administrator   on 
his  own,    kind  of   carved  out  his  own  path  and  made  his  own 
decisions.      We'll    get   into   that  much  later. 

Lage:  These   things   must  have  been  happening  about   the  time  you  were 

taking   over   the   statewide    division. 

Kendrick:      I   had  already   taken  over.      It  was  not  known  who  was  going  to  be 
the   dean  at  the   time  my  appointment  was  made. 

Lage:  Did  you  have  a   role  in  making  that   decision  to  have  Boysie  Day  be 

associate   director? 


Kendrick:      No.       I   don't  recall  having  any   role   in  that,    anyway,    and  I   think 
I  would  remember  that.      That  split  responsibility  was  ultimately 
resolved,    as  I  will  describe   later.     At   the  time  of    my 
appointment    [E.   Gorton]    Gort  Linsley  was   the   dean  and  associate 
director   at  Berkeley.      He  was  a   professor   of    entomology,    and 
James  Meyer,   who  later  became  the   chancellor,    was  the   dean  and 
associate   director   of    the  experiment   station  at  Davis.      Jim  was  a 
professor   of,    I  think,   animal   physiology,    but  his    degree  was   in 
biochemistry,    also   from    the  University   of   Wisconsin.      He   escaped 
taking   that    same   plant   physiology   course   that  we   did,    I   think, 
otherwise  we  would  have  had  a   real    coup.      As  a  matter  of   fact,    he 
was  at  Wisconsin  after  World  War  II,    later   than  Dan  and  Mack  and  I. 

That   separation  of   responsibilities  was  later  solved  when 
Director  Kelly  asked  Boysie  Day   to   come   to  Berkeley  to   be  his 
assistant  and  to  provide   some  assistance   to  him  in  administering 
the   systemwide  Agricultural  Experiment  Station.      At  that   time   the 
associate   directorship  of    the  experiment   station  returned  to  the 
dean  at  Riverside   so  we  resumed  the   standard  way   of   handling   that 
dual    responsibility   of   administration  of    the  respective  colleges 
and  their  respective   units   of   the  Agricultural  Experiment 


146 


Kendrick:      Station.      With  one   person  in   charge,    we   didn't  have   to  worry 
about   who   talked  to  whom   about   certain  issues. 


Teaching  Responsibilities  and   the   Decline   of   Mission-Oriented 
Research 


Kendrick:      That   separation  didn't   exist   more   than  two  years   time,    but   the 
agricultural   constituency  nevertheless  was   right  in   their 
concerns.      The  kind  of    mission  orientation  of    the  experiment 
station,    I   think,    began  to   deteriorate.      At   that    time,    the   close 
focus   and  attention  to  the  agricultural    field  problems  became 
more   difficult  for   the  faculty  to  handle   because   they  had 
teaching  responsibilities;   they  knew    that   their  likelihood  of 
producing  productive  research  in  field  experimentation  was 
lessened,    and  they   were  in  a  highly  competitive  environment   to 
get   their  brownie  points  towards   tenure,    so   that   the   orientation 
of   their  own  research  programs  became  more  basic  and  more 
laboratory   and    greenhouse    oriented. 

It  was  restored,    to  some  extent,   when  Lowell  Lewis  assumed 
one   of    the  associate   deanships,   with  responsibility   for    the 
experiment   station  activities,    under  Mack  Bugger,    the  dean.      Mack 
assembled  a  good  team.      There  were   three   of    them:      Nat    [Nathaniel] 
Coleman,    who  was   professor   of    soils,    joined  the  dean's   office,    so 
between  Mack  Bugger,    Nat  Coleman,    and  Lowell  Lewis,    they  had  a 
real   good  team.      And  Lowell  Lewis   spent  a  good  deal   of   time  with 
the  external   constituency,    trying  to   keep   them,    if   not  happy,    at 
least   satisfied  that  we  were  concerned  about   their  problems. 

Lage:  I  can  foresee  a  potential   problem  with   the   structure   of 

Riverside,    if   the  dean  of    this  College   of   Natural    and 
Agricultural  Sciences  was  a  physicist  or   chemist,    who  really  had 
very    little   connection  with  agriculture. 

Kendrick:      The   constituency  was  really   concerned  about    that. 
Lage:  Bugger  did  have   the   connection. 

Kendrick:      Yes.      He  was   plant-oriented.      Riverside    does  not  have  an  animal 

program   of   any   significance.      Certainly   not   domestic  animals.      So 
it's  a   plant   science-oriented  activity,    with  heavy   emphasis  on 
pest   management  and  toxicology   and  biotechnology.      So  you  are 
quite  right.      If    the    dean  were  a   physicist   or  a  pure   chemist,    or 
a  systematic   botanist,    the  constituency   would  wonder,    "What  is 
going  on  now?      We've   lost  agriculture." 

Kendrick:      Well,    I   think  that  puts  ma  back  to  Berkeley,    when  Br.    Wellman 
asked  if   I  would   come   by  and  visit  with   President  Hitch, 


Co   <-*  Co   C 

TO     03  «-   3 

ft   ^  ft    H- 

«-  3    < 

TO    g  fX,  (B 

"  n'  s'  en 
3*«5  H- 
la  *  <-r 


TO 


ft- 
O 


TO    O 
•-tj  i-h 

O 


3    O 


Q. 
(t 


o 
cr 
n 
1-1 


o 

3 
W 
O 
3 


3 
09 

CD 


Co  (D 

3  cn 

(B  H- 

CO  CL 

n 

?S  13 

(B  rr 

CL  n 

11  3" 

H*  CO 

O  11 

7?  M 

•  (B 

co 


03      = 

1-1     H- 

O.  rr 

O 


3  cu 
CKJ  3 
-  CL 


O     H- 

3"  O 

3    fB 

I 

(B     1 
•I    (B 

?r  cn 

H-  H- 
3  CL 
cn  fB 
v.  g 
rt 


po 

11  C_ 

M  C 

n  3 

en  m 


ft  -. 

n 

3* 


(D 


(D 
i-( 

f? 

n 
o 
1-1 

7? 


147 


VIII     VICE    PRESIDENT  FOR  AGRICULTURAL    SCIENCES— EARLY   CONCERNS 

President  Hitch's    Call    for   a  Long-Range  Academic    Plan 
[Date   of   interview:      October  13,    1987]    ## 


Lage :  Today's  October  13,    1987,    and  this   is  our   seventh   interview   with 

James   Kendrick.      Today  we're   going  to  talk  about  your  appointment 
to  head  up  the  Division  of   Agricultural    Sciences,    and  the 
environment    that  you  found  yourself    in. 

Kendrick:      All   right.      We  have,    I   think,    discussed  the  physical    setting  in 
which  I  was  first  introduced  into   consideration  for   the 
systemwide  vice   presidency.      That  led  me  to  go  home  and  ponder 
briefly  just  what  that  meant  in  terms   of   changing  my  life, 
lifestyle,    and  career   direction — which   I  pondered  for   about  a 
week  or   so.      And  as   I   think  I've  mentioned,    it   caused  some 
disruption  in  Evelyn's  life,    because   she  at   that   time  was  active 
in  the  school   system  in  Riverside,    as   a  member   of   the   board   of 
education. 

My    discussion  with  President  Hitch  about  what  he  really 
expected  from   a  vice   president  was  not  very   revealing.      After   I 
agreed  to  accept   his  invitation  to  join  his   administration  as  the 
vice   president   of   agricultural   sciences    (a  restoration  from   the 
university   dean  title   to  the   title   of  vice   president),    he  made 
the   statement  that  the   division  needed  a   statement   of   purpose  and 
a   long-range   academic  plan.      How    long?      As  long  as  it  was  prudent 
to  forecast. 

So   the  first  thing  I  worked  on  with  Harry  Wellman,    Clarence 
Kelly,    who  was   the   director  of   the  experiment   station,    and  George 
Alcorn,    who  was   the  director  of   the  Agricultural   Extension 
Service,    was  a  statement   of  what  the   division  was,    what  it 
encompassed,    and  a  little  bit  about  what  it  intended  to  do  in  the 
future.      That   statement   served  as  a   guideline,    at  least  a 
statement    of    reference,    for   the  division.       I   don't  have  a   copy   of 
it,    but   it   exists   in   the    system. 


148 


Operating  a   Centralized  Unit  within   the  Decentralized  University 
System 


Kendrick:      The  thing  to  remember  about   the  Division  of   Agricultural 

Sciences,    as  it  was  known  then,    is  that  it  was   the  last   remaining 
university- wide  academic  unit,    following  the  decentralization 
that   dark  Kerr  instituted  during  his  regime,    in  which   campuses 
were  given  the  authority  and  the  autonomy   to  manage   campus 
affairs.      I  had  not  had  much  experience  with   trying  to  manage — I 
didn't  have  any   experience   trying  to  manage   a   program   that 
covered  more   than  one   campus,    in  an  environment   that  was 
dominated  by  decentralization  and  campus  autonomy   expressed  ir. 
each  campus   chancellor's   involvement  in  all    things   that  were 
located  on  their  campus.      So   that  was  the  first  environmental 
difference  with  which   I  had  to   deal. 

Lage:  Did  this  lead  to  unclear  lines  of   authority? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      It   also  led  to   the  fact   that    I  had  to  work  out   some 
processes  and  techniques  to  deal   with   shared  authority, 
particularly  for   the  experiment   station   personnel   involving 
chancellors  and  deans.      On  each   campus,    the  head  of    the 
agricultural   program  held  two  titles — dean  and  associate   director 
of    the  experiment   station.      When  that  individual   was  operating  as 
a   dean,    the  authority   for  his  actions  was  his   campus,   and  his 
chief   administrative   officer  was  the  chancellor.      When  that 
individual  was  functioning  as  an  associate   director   of    the 
experiment   station,    the  authority   was  the  vice   president,    through 
the    director   of    the   experiment    station. 

Nearly  all   the  personnel    in  the  experiment   station  located 
on  the   campuses  were  jointly   appointed  in  the    professorial    series 
and  in  the  experiment   station  series.      And  at  least   on  paper,    the 
vice   president  for  agricultural   sciences  had   the  authority   to 
withhold  or   to  allocate  authority   to  fill  those   FTE   [full-time 
equivalent]    positions  in   the  experiment    station.      Approximately 
an  average  70  percent   of    the  FTE-ness  was  funded  in  the 
experiment   station,    with  an  average   of   about  30   percent  funded 
from    the  instructional   budget,    which  came  under  the  authority   of 
the   chancellors.      It  was  obvious   that   the   chancellor  and   the  vice 
president  had  to  work  out   some  accommodation  to  work  together,    in 
order  to  be  able  to  administer   the   program  and   the   personnel 
involved. 

Lage:  It   seems  as  if   it  would  get  even  more  complicated  when  you  think 

of    the  faculty   responsibility   for   promotion  and   tenure   on  the 
Academic   Senate  Budget  Committee. 


149 


Kendrick:      Well,    that  point  was   clear   even  before   I   got   the  appointment,    in 
that   the  vice    president  and  the  director   only   dealt  with  resource 
allocation,    not  with   personnel   administration.      So  once   the 
position  was  authorized  for   filling,    and  allocated  to  a 
department  or  to  a   college   to  pursue  a   particular   program, 
authority   was   given  to  recruit  a   person  for   that  position.      And 
that  is  the  last   that  we — the   director  and   the  vice   president- 
had  to  do  with   that  particular  position,    except  for   the  resource 
support  for  it.      All    the  recruitment  activities  and   the   oversight 
for   ultimate  evaluation  of   merit  increases  and  promotion  was  a 
campus   affair.      I  had  nothing  to   do  with   that,    and   didn't  want 
to.      It  was  inappropriate  for   the  vice   president   to  be   involved 
at   that  level   of   individual    detail.      So   that  was   always 
understood. 

On   the   other   hand,    in  the  Agricultural   Extension  Service, 
the  vice   president  functioned   there  like  a   chancellor,    because 
the   chief   administrative   officer  for   the  people  in  extension 
ultimately  was   the  vice   president,    through   the   director   of 
extension. 

Lage  :  They   didn't  have  a   tie   to  a   campus   anywhere. 

Kendrick:      That's   correct.      Even  though   the   extension   specialists   were 

residents  in  departments  of    their  specialty  on  campuses,    they 
were  recruited,    evaluated  for  merit  increases  and   promotions 
through   the  extension  line,    and  ultimately   responsible 
administratively  to   the   director  and   the  vice   president.       So, 
part   of    the  personnel    of    the  division  was   directly  responsible   to 
the  vice   president,    and  part   of   it  was   not. 

In  later  years  of    my   administration,    I  did  not   concern 
myself  with  individual   personnel   decisions,    only  with   the 
allocation  of   vacated  positions  to  particular  programs  or 
locations.      The   director  acted  on  all   personnel   action  on   behalf 
of    the  vice   president. 


Reports  of   Academic  and  Advisory   Group  Committees  on  the 
Division's   Direction 


Kendrick:      These   things  were  not   clearly  apparent  when  I   first   arrived.      I 
had  to  find  those   things  out  for   myself.      I  was   also   unaware   of 
the  fact    that   there  already   was   in  existence   a  faculty  and 
extension  committee  working  on  an  academic  plan.      And  they  were 
about  finished  with  their  work — they   were  aiming  towards  July  of 
'68  as  a   completion   date,    and  you'll   remember   I   came  on   board  in 
April.       They'd   been  at  work  nearly  nine  months  already.      That 
committee  had  been  appointed  by  Harry  Wellman. 


150 


Kendrick:      Now.    I  assumed  that   the  reason  it   kind   of  lost   its   place  in  the 
sun  was   because   all   the  other   changes   that  were  going  on  in  the 
University,    such  as   changing   presidents,    and  Harry   being   the 
acting  president  for   the  year  while  the  Regents  were  searching 
for   the   successor  to   Clark  Kerr,    and  a   general   feeling   of 
treading  water   and  waiting  for   positions  to  be  filled.      It   seemed 
that   the  vacancy   in  the  University   dean  of  agriculture    position 
was   something  that  was  really  not  going  to  be   pursued  with  any 
vigor   until    there  was  a   president   on   board. 

But   that   committee  worked  hard  and  well,    and  they   produced  a 
report   that  was  worthy   of    their   efforts.      I  took  it   seriously, 
and  as  a   matter   of    fact,    I  welcomed  the  fact   that  it  was  in 
existence  because  when  President  Hitch   said   that  we   needed  an 
academic  plan,    and  when  I  discovered  that  this  committee  was  in 
existence,    I   said,    "Hooray  1      We're   already    almost  able   to    do 
that." 

They,    in  due   course,    presented  me  with  a  plan.      I   met   with 
them  once  or   twice,    to   share   some  thoughts  of   my  own  with   them. 
But    they    (the   thoughts)    weren't  very   profound   because   I  was 
relatively   inexperienced  and   didn't  have    the    background   of   having 
spent   nine  months  working  on  the  plan. 

I  was  aware   of  another  report   that  had   been   produced   by 
Robert  Long,    who  at  that   time  was  a   senior  vice   president   for 
Bank  of  America  and  a  member  of    the  Agricultural  Advisory 
Committee  for   the   division.      It  was  a  report  produced  by   that 
advisory  committee  and  addressed  things   that   the    division  needed 
to    pay    attention   to. 

Lage :  So   this  was  advice   coming  from   outside    the  University? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      I  was    getting  some  outside  advice  as  well  as   internal.      It 
became  known  as   the  Long  Report.      It  also  contained  some  valuable 
information  about   the   directions   of    things.      Well,    all    these  were 
available   to  me  by   summer   of   '68.      I  had  discovered  also,    not   too 
long  after   I  had  arrived,    that   the  legislature  had  requested   a 
report  of   what   the   division  was   doing,    a  kind  of  justification  of 
its  existence.     And   that  was   the  first   of   many   such  requests 
which   came   through   from    the  legislature.      I  had  to  put   together 
something  I   didn't  know  much  about    [laughter],    and   that  was   a 
description  of  what  we  were  all  about,    and  what  marvelous  things 
we  were   doing  while   paying  attention  to   things    the  legislators 
were  interested  in.      That  was   delivered  in  a   rush.      The  deadline 
was  coming  down  on  us  in  a  hurry,    related  to   the   budget  hearings 
in  Sacramento.      So   those  were  really  the  first  work  assignments 
that   I  found   myself   engaged   in. 


151 


Kendrick:      All    of    the   staffing  of    the    division  office  was   in   place.      The 
director   of    the  experiment   station  was  Clarence  Kelly;   the 
director   of  Agricultural  Extension  was  George  Alcorn;  and  all    the 
support    staff    remained   in  place.      I   didn't  bring  anyone  with  me. 
Douglas   McNeill  was   the   special  assistant  to   the  vice   president. 

Lage :  You  mentioned  your   administrative  assistant — 

Kendrick:      Yes.      She  was  Nona  Brown.      Nona  Brown  had  served  four   previous 
administrators  in  the  division,    and  I  was   the  fifth,    and  her 
Waterloo.      [laughter] 

Lage:  Are  you  going  to  elaborate   on  that? 

Kendrick:      No.      We  had  a   good  relationship.      I   think  she  just  wanted  to 

retire.      It  was  not  a   problem  with  her;    she  was  very   helpful    in 
getting  me   oriented  into  a  lot   of    things   that   needed   my 
attention,    and  I   needed  to  know   about.      And  she  was  quite   loyal. 
There  was  no  real   problem.      It's  just,    after   so  long  a    time  you 
get   tired  where  you  are,    and  she  was  ready   to  retire. 

Lage:  I  want  to  hear  more  about  the  advisory  committee  report.      When   I 

read  through   and  looked  through   the  California  Farmer  for  this 
period,     that  is   '68-'69,    it   seemed  like   things  were  on  fire   in 
the  farm   community,    that  there  was  a  lot  of   feeling  about   the 
agriculture  labor   situation,   and  the  farmers  felt  very  much   on 
the  defensive.      Now,    did  this  affect   that  advisory    report,    or   did 
it  affect  your  job  in  another  way? 

Kendrick:      It    certainly   did  affect    the   position.      It   didn't  affect   the 

academic  plan  as  much,   as   I  recall — the  report  which   the   staff 
and  faculty   committee  put   together,    and  that  I  had  high  hopes 
for.      I   read  it,   and   I  was   somewhat    disappointed  in  it,    I    guess, 
because   it   didn't   seem   to  address  what   I   felt  were  the  current 
and  future   problems;   it  just   alluded  to  them.      It  failed  to   deal 
adequately  with  labor  and  management,    environmental  quality, 
environmental   degradation,   and  the  kind   of   problems   that 
agriculture  associated  with   people  relationships.      It   projected 
pretty  much  standard  agricultural  needs  as  were   known  in  the 
past,    and  how  we  needed  to  do  more  of  what  we  were  doing,    do  it 
better  and  more   efficiently. 

Lage:  Did  the  report  from   the  faculty   go   in  that   same   direction? 

Kendrick:  That's  what   I'm   talking  about. 

Lage:  Okay — I  was   thinking  about   that  agricultural    advisory — 

Kendrick:  The  Long  Committee? 

Lage:  Yes. 


152 


Kendrick:      The  Long  Committee  was  more  specific.      In  fact,    it   identified 

some  real   problems  that  needed  attention,    but   most   of   them  were 
economic  and  marketing  problems.      Those  are    persistent    problems; 
they're  with  us   today,    and  they   were  with   us   then.      It  was  less 
concerned  about   needing  more   pounds,    or   tons,    of  agriculture 
products  than  it  was  on  knowing  how   to  handle  what  was  already 
produced.      The  report   stated   that    the  University's    Division   of 
Agricultural    Sciences   didn't   seem    to  be   giving  the  kind  of    help 
expected,    or   that   growers  had  received  in  the   past,   on  how    to 
deal   with  marketing  problems.      So  one   of   the  first  challenges  I 
met  was  to  pay  more  attention  to  these  economic  and  marketing 
problems. 

Also  expressed  as  a   concern  was   the  fact   that   the 
University's  Agricultural  Experiment   Station   seemed  to   be 
withdrawing  from   field-oriented  problems.      There  did  not  seem   to 
be  as  many  experiment   station  individuals  out   in  field   plots,    or 
as  often  as   growers   remembered  seeing  the  individuals' 
predecessors  and  other    people.      They   wondered  whether   or   not   the 
University    really   had  a   commitment   to  agriculture's   needs.      So 
that  was  another  kind  of  attitudinal   climate    I  inherited  with 
this   assignment. 

Lage :  Let's    go   back  to   that   faculty    report   that  you  were  talking  about. 

Kendrick:      Okay.      I   perceived   that   the  faculty   report  had  taken  a  lot    of 

effort   to  produce,    so,    as  was   standard  procedure,    I   bundled  it  up 
and  sent  it   off   to   the   campuses,    to   the   deans,    and   said,    "Please 
take   this   document   and  have   it   reviewed  by  your   faculty,    in  order 
to  get   some   comments,    agreements  or   disagreements."      I   also   said 
that   I'd  like    those   comments  back  so   that  we  could  discuss  what 
we're   going  to   do  next.      I   gave   them  what   I   thought  was  an 
adequate  amount   of    time,    but    I   don't   recall   how    much.      But    it  was 
enough   to  have   faculty    input. 

I  was   disappointed  to  receive  nothing  in  return.      Now,    I've 
got  to  digress  to  indicate  that   two  of    the   campuses  were 
undergoing  changes   in   their   deanships.      On  July   1    of   '68,    at 
Riverside,    Mack  Bugger  was  appointed   dean  of   agriculture  and 
Boysie  Day   was  appointed  associate  director   of   the  experiment 
station.      We  discussed  earlier   the  administrative    problem   this 
change    presented,    and  I   think  it  had  something  to  do  with   the 
lack  of  enthusiasm  for  a  report   that   Kendrick  sent    down  and  asked 
for   comments. 

At  Davis,    Chancellor    [Emil]    Mrak  was  retiring,    and  they   were 
looking  for  a   successor  for  him.      The   dean  of   agriculture  at 
Davis,    Jim  Meyer,    was   named  Mrak's   successsor   as   chancellor,    I 
think  in  the  fall   of  '68.      And   Chet   McCorkle,    who  had   been  the 
executive  vice   chancellor  for   the  Davis  campus,    was  named  by  Jim 
Meyer  as   the   dean  of   agriculture  to  succeed  him.      So   that  was   a 


153 


Kendrick:      change  in  the  administration  at   Davis.      The  only  holdover   dean 
and  associate   director  was  Gort  Linsley   at  Berkeley,   not   the 
largest   segment   of    the    division.      So   the  faculty  had  other   things 
to  think  about,    other   tnan  a  so-called  division  master  academic 
plan.      And   that  explained  somewhat   the  lack  of    response. 

This  led  me   to  the  conclusion  that   if   my   deans'   council, 
which  was  the  administrative   council  I  continued  to  meet  with 
monthly,   was   persuaded  that   the  plan  didn't   excite   them  very 
much,    or  didn't   continue  to   challenge   them   to  spend  much   time 
with   it,    that  it  wasn't   going  to  go  anywhere.      This  was  another 
case  where  it  was  something  I  had  no   part  in  initiating,    so   I 
didn't  feel    any   particular  ownership  of   what  was   produced,    and 
since  it   contained  what   I  thought  were   some    deficiencies,    it 
wound  up  being  a   nice  exercise  without  much  impact. 

Lage:  Went   on   the   shelf. 

Kendrick:     And  as   I   think  I   said  earlier,    most  academic  plans  have  about  as 
much  impact  as   dropping  a   pebble  in  a   pond   of  water:      they    cause 
a  little  ripple,    and  then  everything  settles  back  to  the  way    it 
was. 


Pressure  from   Farming  Community,    Legislature,    Regents; 
The  Division  in  a  Defensive  Position  ## 


Lage:  Now,     let's   talk  a  little  bit  about  how   you  developed  your   agenda, 

since  you   didn't   rely   on   the  academic   plan. 

Kendrick:      Okay.      I'm  not  quite  sure  just  how    I   developed  what  might   be 

called   my  agenda.      It    probably   developed  in  response  to   concerns 
which  I  had  resulting  from   comments  that  I  received  from   certain 
members  of   the  Board  of  Regents,   and  certain  members   of   the 
legislature,    in  the  course   of    their  examining  the  agriculture 
budget.      You  mentioned  reading   California  Farmer   during   the 
period  of    the  sixties  and  noting  that   there  was  a  lot   of   unrest 
in  the  farming  community.      There  was   great    concern  about   Cesar 
Chavez    and  his  labor   organizing  operations.      The  use   of 
pesticides  was   also  a  major   concern.      Rachel    Carson  had  published 
her  book  Silent   Spring   in  1962,    and  the   traditional   agricultural 
community  resented  that  book.      They   thought  it  was  an  intrusion 
into  their  business  by   someone  who  ought   to  know   better  and 
didn't.      They   disputed  many   of   her  facts,    really   on  very    shaky 
grounds   because    they    didn't   have   the   data    to   do   so. 


Lage: 


Did   the  University  have   data? 


154 


Kendrick:      No,    it   didn't  exist.      There  were   some  experiments   started  when   I 
was  in  Riverside,    by   some  of   my  colleagues  in  entomology   who  were 
beginning  to  wonder  what  would  happen  downstream   several  years 
from   all   the  insecticides   they   were   putting  on  the  ground.      The 
experiments  were  being  set  up  to  answer   some   of    these  questions, 
but   there  was  no  hard   data   to  suggest   that  DDT  remained  in  the 
food  chain  and   didn't    break   down  very   easily. 

Data  was  also   beginning  to  accumulate  in  studies  at 
Riverside  and  a  few  other   places,    showing   that  resistance   to  DDT 
was   showing  up  in  insect    populations.      So  even  before  it  was 
banned  from   use  as  a   bad,    persistent   insecticide,    its   broad  use 
was  being  phased  out   because   it  took  more  quantity   to  kill   fewer 
bugs,   and  people  who  were  really   thinking  about   that    problem 
realized  that   they   were  dealing  with  an  obsolete  chemical. 

They  moved  on  to   the   organic   phosphates  and  found  out   that 
the  insects  had  a   marvelous   capacity   to  breed  resistance   to  that 
group  of   compounds,    too.      So  it   became   kind   of   a   treadmill 
effect,    which  was  another  problem   to  deal   with.      Wide   use   of 
insecticides  in  agriculture  was  traditionally   accepted  as   the  way 
to  produce   undamaged  crops,    and  we  had  to  begin  thinking  of 
different  ways  to  replace   the   traditional   control   measure  for 
insects   and   other    pests. 

Well,    with  labor  and  the  quality   of   the  environment  which 
encompassed  the  fungicide-pesticide   problem,    another   concern  was 
the  consumer.      The  consumer  has   never  really  been  very   well 
organized,    even  though   there  are   consumer   organizations,    because 
everybody    is  a   consumer,    in  a   sense,    and  that   is  a  hindrance   in 
being  able  to  identify  what   some   of    the   consumer   problems  were. 
Some  of   those   problems  related  to  marketing — which   the  Long 
Committee  had  identified  as   being  important.      All    of    these  were 
talked  about   at  Regents'    meetings   by    Fred    [Frederick  G.]    Dutton, 
Bill    [William   M.]    Roth,    Norton   Simon,    and  several   others.      I 
would  have   to  review    the  make-up  of   the  Board  of   Regents  at  that 
time  to  identify   all    of    the   concerned  individuals,   but    Fred 
Dutton's   constant   comments   stick  in  my   memory. 

Lage:  He  was  trying  to  urge   the    division  to  address   some   of    these 

problems? 

Kendrick:      Well,   what  he  was  saying  was  that  the  division  was  nothing  more 
than  a  publicly  supported  research  and  extension  activity   for 
agribusiness  and  it   cared  little  for   the  environment   or  for  farm 
labor.      He  accentuated   the   notion  that   the    division  was  an 
agribusiness  adjunct.      That   same  attitude  was   dominant  in  our 
legislative  hearings,    when  the  budget   came  into   purview,    because 
Assemblyman    [John]    Vasconcellos  was,    even  back  in  1968,    a  very 


155 


Kendrick:     vocal   critic   of    the  agricultural   program  in  the  University.      He 
made    the   same  kind  of   allegations  that  the  division  cared  little 
for  anything  other   than  large,    organized  agribusiness. 

I   may   have   told  you  earlier   that   the  term  "agribusiness"  was 
created  by  a  colleague   of   mine — at  least  he   claimed  to   be   the 
author   of    it.      Guy   MacLeod,    at  the   time   I  arrived  in  Berkeley, 
was  a  special   assistant  in  the  vice   president's   office  handling   a 
program   to  educate  applicators  on  how    to  apply  pesticides  in  a 
judicious  and   safe  manner.      Guy   MacLeod  was   a   Ph.D.    research 
entomologist  for   a  while   on  the  faculty   at  Berkeley.      He  went  to 
Cornell  for  a  while  and  ultimately  wound  up   back  in  Fresno  as   the 
owner- ope  rat  or   of   a  business   called  Sunland  Chemicals.      That 
business  was  later   sold  to  one   of    the  large    chemical   concerns. 
Guy   was  always  interested  in  education  and  the  academic  world  and 
he  was  a  very  powerful  and  influential   person  in  the   San  Joaquin 
Valley.      He   organized  a   group  of   people  who   supported  the 
establishment  of   two  agricultural  field  stations — the  Kearney 
Field  Station  and  the  Westside   Field  Station.      So  he  was  a   good 
benefactor  as  far  as   the    division  was    concerned,   but  a   strong 
chemical    pesticide    advocate. 

Lage:  When  he   coined  the  term,    did  he  mean  it  as  a   critical    term? 

Kendrick:      No,   he  coined  it  in  good  faith.      I'm  not  even  sure  he  did  it,   but 
he    claimed   that  he    did.      I   didn't   spend  any    time   trying  to   trace 
the  origin  of    that  word,    so  if  his   claim   is  valid,    that's  fine 
with  me. 

He   coined  the  word  to  describe   and  convey    the  notion  that 
agriculture  was  a  business;    it  wasn't  just   a  hobby.      You  had  to 
approach   farming,    the  production  of   the  commodity,    in  a 
businesslike  way.      That  notion  was  absolutely   correct.      You   could 
not   survive  in  the  climate  of   competition,    marketing, 
advertising,    borrowing  to  finance   the  operation,    if  you   don't 
understand  how    businesses   operate. 

So,    in  all   good  faith,    he  was   trying  to  describe    the  fact 
that   the   processors,    the   transportation  industry,    the  retail 
markets  and  the  production  aspects  of   agriculture  were  really 
parts  of  an  agribusiness  system.      But   that  word  was  quickly 
captured  by   proponents  of   the  labor- management   conflict  to 
indicate  one   party  of   the   natural    conflict   between  employer  and 
employee  in  agriculture.      It  was  alleged  by   the  non-agribusiness 
proponents   that  the  publicly  supported  programs  were  skewed 
towards   benefitting  agribusiness  and  that  they   were  not  paying 
attention  to  what  the  rest   of    the   population  really  was   concerned 
about,     such   as  agriculture's   use   of   an  excessive  amount   of  water, 
the   contamination  of   the  environment  with  pesticides,    and  the 
disregard  for   quality    of    their  products. 


156 


Kendrick:      That   climate  was   perpetuated  by    this  representation  on  the  Board 
of   Regents  and  in  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of    the  assembly, 
all    of  which  wasn't  wasted  on  me. 

Lage :  Yes.    I   can  see   that.      Agriculture  was   in  a   defensive   position, 

and  it  looks  like  your   division  was  as  well. 

Kendrick:     Well,    it  was  swept  up  in  it  because,    if  our   program  was  accused 

of   paying  attention  only   to  one  aspect   of    the   total   enterprise,    I 
had  to  do    something  about   it  because   I  was  sensitive   to  the  fact 
that  we  were  a  publicly  supported  institution  which   needed   to 
support  a   program   that  really   responded  to  the   total   needs  of    the 
state's  population. 

Lage:  So  what   the  critics   said   does   seem   to  have  a  certain  amount   of 

truth  in  it,    then? 

Kendrick:      Oh  yes,    absolutely,    it  was   correct.      It's  just   the  fact   that  when 
you  are  accused  of   something,    you  are  resentful.       I  had  a  large 
operating  experiment   station  and  Cooperative  Extension  Service 
people  and   they   didn't  like  to   be   told   that   they   were   favoring 
one    segment    of   society   over  another.      They    said,    "We're  available 
to  advise  anybody   that  wants   to   seek  it.      We're   not    directing  our 
activities    specifically    to  agribusiness."     The  problem  with   that 
answer  is  that  the   people  and  the   groups  who  were    complaining 
about   being  on  the  outside  were  not  accustomed  to  coming  and 
knocking  on  the   county   agricultural   farm  advisors'    doors  and 
asking  for   help.      And  the   sophisticated,    organized,    business-like 
agriculture  industries  knew  where  to   go  to    get  what   they   wanted. 

Lage:  And  they   had  committees   set   up — 

Kendrick:      Had  parallel   committees,  and  they  employed  professionals  who  knew 
how    to  tap  into  the   system,    and  they   used  the   system.      I've   never 
quite  accepted  the   notion  that   organized  labor  was   so   deficient 
that    they    couldn't  have  used  the   system   also   if    they   had  been  a 
little  more  aggressive,    but   they   didn't.      They   figured   that  we 
were   so  committed  to  the  agricultural    industries  as  they  knew 
them   that  they  would  be  less   than  welcome  if   they   requested  our 
assistance,    and   therefore   they    didn't   even  bother    to   do    so.      I'm 
not  sure  that  they  may   not  have  had  some   unhappy   experiences    that 
sort  of   cemented  that  point   of  view  because  we  had  some  people 
who   didn't   sympathize  with   organized  labor.      It  was   a  very   tense 
time — they    felt  if   they    had  anything  to   say    that  helped  labor, 
then  they  would  alienate  all    these   owners  and  agricultural 
enterprises  and  farmers  whom   they'd  been  working  with  all   the 
time,    and   therefore   they'd  have   the   other   side    condemning    them. 
So   it  was  a   case   of   damned  if  you  do   and   damned  if  you   don't,    and 
not   knowing  how   to  handle  it. 


157 


Broadening  Representation  on  the  Agricultural   Advisory    Council 


Lage  :  So  how   did  you  try    to  move   the  institution — ? 

Kendrick:      It  was  fun.      The  first   thing  I   did  in  trying  to  make   that   change 
was   to   reorganize    the  Agricultural   Advisory   Council.      That's   the 
group  of   advisors  external   to   the  University.      When   I  inherited 
it,    the  committee  was  composed  of   chairs  and  leaders  of  organized 
agricultural   groups,    such  as  the   tomato   growers,    the   canners,    the 
citrus   growers,    the  avocado   growers,    the  Agricultural   Council    of 
California,    and   the   Council    of    California  Growers.      We  had  and 
still   do  have  a  lot  of   organized  commodity   marketing  groups — 
raisin  growers,   walnut   growers,   almond   growers,    cotton   growers — 
you  name  it,   we've  got  it. 

But   that  committee  as  an  advisory   group,    as  you  can  probably 
guess,   was   concerned  mainly  about  the   commodities  for  which  each 
member  was  responsible,   and  the  problems  associated  with  those 
commodities  were  mostly  production  problems,   as  well  as  marketing 
problems. 

I   felt   that   the   committee  representation  needed  to  be 
broadened,    so  as   the  members'    terms  expired   I  appointed  .people 
from   some   of    the  non-agricultural   constituencies.      I   sought 
representation,    if   not  from   organized  labor,   at  least  from    people 
who  understood  labor  problems.      I  appointed  a   consumer  spokesman 
who  was  particularly   effective  and  was  the  food  editor  for   the 
Los  Angeles   Times.      She  was  not   exactly  an  organizer  of   consumer 
groups,    but  at  least  was   effective  in   dealing  with   the   consumers' 
interests. 


I  added  a   person  who  was  a  well-known  newspaper  writer  on 
environmental  matters.      He  is  still  writing  the   same   kind   of 
columns  today — Harold  Gilliam,   who  writes  a  column  that  appears 
in   "This  World"  in   the   San   Francisco   Chronicle    on   Sundays.       He 
called  me  just   the  other   day   with   a  question  about   California's 
agriculture.      Harold  was   a  marvelous  addition  to   the  advisory 
council   because  he'd  ask  those   embarrassing  questions  in  the  most 
polite  way.       [laughter] 

The  person  I  asked  to  bring  some   sensitivity   about  labor   to 
the   council  was  Andy  Juvenal.      I've  lost   track   of   him,    but  he  was 
a  minister   in  San  Francisco,    but   not  a  minister  from   one   of   the 
main-line   churches.      He  was  from  the   Mission  District   or 
somewhere  like    that. 


Lage:  Did  he  have  a   connection  with  agriculture  labor — ? 

Kendrick:      He   had — yes — and  I   can't  recall  just   exactly   what  it  was. 
was  well   informed  about  agricultural   labor. 


But   he 


158 

Lage:  Did  you  think  of   going  right   to   the   source  and   getting   somebody 

from   the  farmworkers'    union? 

Kendrick:      Yes.    I   did.      I   inquired  of    the  farmworkers'   union  whom   they  would 
recommend,    but   they   didn't  want   to  participate.      They   never 
wanted  to  be  included  in  this   organization   because   they   thought 
they   would  be    co-opted,    misused.      I   think  they    wanted  to  be   able 
to  criticise  without  being  made  a   part   of    the   organization  and 
subject   to  being  neutralized  or   at  least  making  it  more  difficult 
for   them  to  be  publicly   critical.      I   can  understand  that;    it's   a 
point   of   view    that  I   can  deal   with.      But    I  think  that   they   would 
have  been  a  little  better   served   by   being  willing  to   sit    down  and 
negotiate   some   programs  or   opportunities  for   their  own  benefit. 


159 


IX     PUBLIC  SCRUTINY  AND  LEGAL    CHALLENGES   TO  AGRICULTURAL    PROGRAMS 


Agricultural   Mechanization  and   Farm  Labor  Opportunities; 
Vasconcellos    Committee  Hearings.    1973 


Kendrick 


Lage: 


Kendrick: 


Now,    on  top  of   all    this   social  environment,    the   beginning  of    the 
long,    arduous   arguments  about  mechanization  and  what  it  does  to 
farm  labor  opportunities   took  place.     Agriculture  was  not 
economically   all   that  healthy;    it  was  moving  as  rapidly  as  it 
could  to  reduce  labor    costs.      It  wished  not  only  to  reduce  labor 
costs,    but   also   its   dependency   on  what  was  perceived  to  be  a 
relatively  unstable  supply  of  labor  at  the   time  when  it  was 
needed  for   harvests.      Farmers   don't  have  a  lot   of    time   to  find 
people  to  fill   positions  and  negotiate  with   them  when  the  fruit 
is   ripe   on  the  trees   or   the  vines.       So  to  the  extent   that   they 
could  overcome  the  labor   unrest  that   Cesar  liked  to  used  as   a 
means  of    organizing,    and  to  reduce   the  uncertainty   and  the 
hazards  of  harvesting,    planting,   and  pruning,    the  farmers  were 
more   than  ready   to  move  to  mechanical   aids  in  their  farming 
practices.      And   the   U.S.    universities  with   agricultural    programs, 
not   just    the  University    of    California,    and  the  USDA    [U.S. 
Department  of  Agriculture]   had  comprehensive   programs  to   develop 
mechanical    aids   to  the  agriculture  processes. 


How  long  had  those   programs   been  in  effect? 
quite  a  ways? 


Does   this    go   back 


It    goes   back — yes.      You   go    back  to  the  cotton  harvester.       I   don't 
know  just  exactly  when  that  was,    but  it  was   developed   before 
World  War  IL      I   can  recall  as  a  youngster  in  high   school, 
colleagues  of   my  father  working  on  a  mechanical   sugar   beet 
harvester,    so   that   they   could  raise   the  sugar  beets  up  onto  the 
surface   of   the   ground  and  pick  them   up  in  a   big  rotating  sphere 
of    spikes.      This  machine  was  designed  to  replace  workers  who 
would  pull   the  beets  out  of   the   ground,    top   them,    and  toss   them 
into  a   truck.      So   the  development   of    mechanical   aids   to 
harvesting  was   not    confined  to   the   tomato  harvester   alone.      It 
had   progenitors   in  other   produce   as  well. 


160 


Kendrick:     But   the   tomato  harvester  had  an  interesting  life   of   its   own.      It 
has   become  the  symbol   of   science-developed  mechanical   aids 
resulting  in  field  labor   positions    being  reduced.      That  fact  was 
receiving  attention  in  the  legislature  also;   it  was  perceived 
that  the  University  was  paying  attention  only   to  farm 
management's   problems,    the  farmer's   problems,    and  not   the  farm 
laborer's   problems. 

Lage :  Was  it   the  Agricultural   Experiment  Station  or   the  Cooperative 

Extension  Service  that  would  work  on   developing   these  machines? 

Kendrick:      The  experiment   station.      Extension  was   involved,    but    only   to  the 

extent   of    evaluating  in   the  field    these    developing   devices.  They 

were  developed   oy   the  Department  of  Agricultural   Engineering  in 
the   experiment    station. 

I  wanted  to  relate  an  incident   that  sort  of   characterized  my 
life   before   the  legislature.      It  was  a   particularly   long  and 
dreary   afternoon  of    hearings   in  the  early  1970s,    in  which   a 
special   session  was   called  by  the  Assembly  Ways  and   Means 
Subcommittee   on  the  University's   budget,    to  listen  to  the 
complaintants  about  agricultural   programs.      The   session  was 
chaired  by   John  Vasconcellos,    an  assemblyman.      There  was  an  array 
of  witnesses,   a   pretty   good-sized  room  full    of    people,    to  listen 
to  all    the  allegations  about  how    the  University's  agricultural 
research  program  was  skewed  to  the  right.      It  was   alleged   that 
the  research  was  not  helpful   at  all  because   it  resulted  in  the 
displacement  of  farm  labor  and  increased  unemployment.      It  was 
stated  by   the  critics   that,    on  the  one  hand,    public  funds   were 
being  used  to   develop  mechanical   aids  for  harvests  resulting  in 
increased  unemployment  which,    on  the  other  hand,    placed  increased 
demands  on  publicly  funded  welfare   programs.      You   can   see   that 
that  allegation  provided  much   food  for   discussion.       It's   the   sane 
argument  which  is   used  in   pointing  out   the   irony    of    the   U.S. 
government   supporting  programs   in  tobacco  research   and,    at   the 
same   time,    supporting  cancer  research  and  pointing  out   the 
connection  between  smoking  and  lung  cancer   and  heart   disease. 

It's  not  quite  as   dramatic   as    the    cancer-tobacco    situation, 
but  a  lot   of   discussion  was   taking  place   on  how    the  public 
representatives   could  allow  such  a   situation  to  exist  where   this 
dual   activity   was   counterproductive.      Well,    we  had  to  listen  to  a 
lot   of   allegations   that  were   not  exactly   true;    they  were 
exaggerations  about   the  insensitivity   of   the  people  who  were 
engaged  in  those   kinds   of   programs.      There  were  allegations   also, 
which  were  untrue,    that  in  fact  we  had  no  programs  addressing 
labor  displacement.     Actually,   we  did  have  programs   that  were 
attempting  to  deal   with  some  of   the  problems  that  labor  was 
facing.      But   they  were   kind   of   buried  in   the   rhetoric   of    the    day. 


161 


Kendrick:      We  also  had  by   that   time  a  nutrition  education   program  in 

Cooperative  Extension  addressing  nutrition  problems  of   the  poor 
and  trying  to  teach  them  how   to  economize  in  their  food  purchases 
but  at   the   same  time  improve  the  nutritional   balance   of   the  meals 
which   they   prepared.      But  this  program  was  not  acknowledged  by 
the  Vasconcellos  Committee  as  useful. 

Near   the  end   of    the  hearing,    after  listening  to   all    those 
allegations,    my   turn  came   to  respond.      The  rhetoric  was  full   of 
acrimony,   and  feelings  were  really  tense.      I  asked  Assemblyman 
Vasconcellos  if   I   could  begin  my   testimony   with  a  representative 
who  was  a   small   farmer,    a   Mrs.    Sally  Oliver.      He    said,    "Certainly, 
you  can."     Sally   had  been  livid  all   afternoon.       She  was  almost 
beside  herself  with  emotion  because   she  was   concerned  about  what 
she  perceived  to  be   much   misrepresentation  of    her   situation. 

When  she   came  to  the   table   to  testify,    she   could  hardly 
control   her  voice;    she  was  really   emotional.      She  said  she  had 
listened  to  all    these   allegations   against    the  University's 
program  by   people  who   didn't  have  any   idea  what  farming  was  all 
about.      There  wasn't   a  farmer  among  all  who  had  testified.      They 
were  either   academics  or   they   were — I  forget  the  terms   she  used; 
they  weren't  very   complimentary.      She   said   she  was   there  as  a 
farmer's  wife,    and  furthermore,    she  was   there  as  a   small   farmer's 
wife.      They  had  about    sixty  acres   of   almonds  and  walnuts,   and   she 
said  to  the  members  of    the  subcommittee,    "Have  you  ever  tried  to 
knock  almonds  out   of   a   tree  with  a   pole?      If  you  haven't,    then 
you  ought   to   try    it.      And  if  you've  got   thirty-five   or  forty 
acres  of   almond  trees  that  you  have  to  harvest   the  nuts  from  with 
a   pole,     it   is   one    tough   business." 

II 

She  went   on  to  say    that   the  only   reason  they   were  able  to 
sustain  themselves  in  farming  at  all  was   because   of   the  help 
they'd   gotten  from    the  University   of   California,    and  in 
particular  in  their  mechanical   harvesting  aid   program.      That 
program   had  developed  a  means  of   harvesting  almond  nuts  from 
trees  with   a  mechanical    shaker   so   that   they   didn't  have  to   knock 
the  nuts  from    the   trees,    as  they   once   did,    by   hand-held  poles. 

Well,   her  emotional  support  and  the  fact   that    she  was   a 
farmer's  wife  who   obviously  did  more   than  just   cook  in  the 
kitchen — she  was  out  working  in  the  field — changed  the  atmosphere 
in  that  hearing  almost   immediately.      We  weren't  able  to  change 
their  minds  at  all,    but  we   certainly   changed   their   politeness  and 
their  receptivity   as  far  as  the  subsequent  testimony   was 
concerned,   where  we   tried  to   set   the  record  straight.      But   I 
always   identify   that  hearing  as  symbolic  of   the  environment  we 
typically  had  to   deal  with  in  terms   of  having   the  University's 
agricultural    program    accepted  and  understood   generally. 


162 


Lage:  It's   also  interesting,     I   think,    for    the   purpose   of    this   history 

to   see  what   the  forces  were   that  led  to  change   in  the  program. 
Was   this   testimony   all    taking   place   during   the  University's 
budget  review    in  the  legislature? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      The  annual   review. 

Lage:  So  you'd  be   called  upon  to  defend  your   program. 

Kendrick:      Any   time  the  agricultural  budget  was  up  for  legislative  review,    I 
was   the   spokesperson  for   it.      And  that's   the   time   I   had  to  deal 
with  criticism  and  the   critics.      If  we  happened  to  have   budget 
proposals   for  new   programs,    I  and  a  few   expert  witnesses  would  be 
there  to   defend   them.      During   this  antagonistic   climate    of 
allegations   and   criticism    of    the  University's  agricultural 
program  for  lack  of  attention  to   the   plight   of    the  farm  worker, 
and  for   not   doing  enough   for   the  small  and  economically  stressed 
farmers,    or  for   underfunding  migrant    children's   education,    I    gave 
the  legislature  ample   opportunity   to  augment  the  budget  for   these 
programs,    by  putting  in  requests   in   the  University's    budget. 
These   requests  were  denied;    in  fact,    on  several    occasions  our 
budget  was  reduced,   and  it  was  suggested   that   I  ought  to 
reallocate  what   I  already   had  to  these   programs  if   I  felt   they 
needed  augmented  support.      The   only   way   I   could  really   reallocate 
within  the  University's  budget  was   to  discharge    people,    and  that 
doesn't  happen  without  just    cause.       Their   suggestion  just   wasn't 
very   practical. 


Budget  and  Personnel    Problems   in  Nutrition  Education 


Kendrick:      The  other   two  programs  that  caused  problems  for   the  division  were 
associated  with  4-H  and  nutrition  in   Cooperative  Extension. 
These   two  programs  were  expanding  their  traditional    rural 
homemaker  clientele  and  the  rural  youth  leadership  and  commodity 
training  programs   into  the  inner   city,    into  the  poorer   segments 
of   our    society. 

Lage:  Now,    how   did  that  change   occur? 

Kendrick:      Well,    the  nutrition  education   program   developed   because    of   a 

federal    appropriation  through   the  USDA  to  Cooperative  Extension 
to  establish  a  nationwide  network   of   expanded  nutrition  education 
programs.      It   resulted  in  an  allocation  to   the  University   of 
California's   Cooperative  Extension  of    three   to   four   million 
dollars   a  year.       It    didn't   start  at   that  level;    it   started  at 
less   than  that  level,    but   it    grew   to   be  about   that  much   over   a 
fifteen-year  period. 


163 


Kendrick:      But  the  fundamental   problem  with  that   program  was  that  it  was  not 
indexed  for   any    increase   in  costs.      It   took  time   to  get   it 
started  so  initially   there  was  a  surplus   of   funds,    but   once  we 
got   it   geared  up  and  running,    there  was  no  augmentation  to  take 
care   of    salary   increases  and  expanded   program   needs.      The  federal 
appropriation  was   fixed  by   a  formula  which   didn't  include  a  cost 
of  living  adjustment.      That  meant  in  order  to  accommodate   the 
needs   for   growth   in  salaries,    we  had  to  plan  program   reductions 
over   time.      The  only  way  to   do  that  was   to   eliminate   some 
temporary   positions  in  the  nutritional    education  program. 

The   program  was  administered  by  regular  Cooperative 
Extension  personnel    in  the  family  and  consumer  science   program, 
so  their  funding  and   their   support  was  not    dependent   on  this 
special    appropriation.      Most    of    the  funds  were  expended  in 
employing   people  half    time  as   "nutrition  aides."     There  were  a 
few    nutrition  aide   supervisors  also   supported  by   these   funds. 
The  nutrition  aides  were  recruited  from   the  economically   stressed 
communities  where   they   were  expected  to  go  back  and  conduct  the 
education  program.      Their  clientele  were   the    people  who   often 
were  very   poorly  educated  and  very   poverty   stricken,    and  in  many 
instances    single-parent    units. 

Those   nutrition  aide   recruits  were  given  special   training  in 
the  four  basic  food   groups  and  became  a  very  valuable   part   of    the 
extension  employment   staff.      But  when  adjustments  in  our 
personnel   employment  were  needed,   they  were  the  ones  who  we  had 
to  adjust   out   of    the  program.      They   didn't  understand  why   this 
was  taking  place  for  them,   when  they   could   see   their  supervisors 
being  retained. 

Lage:  Now,    why  were   they   the  ones   that  had  to  go? 

Kendrick:      Because  they  were  on  the   special   funds   that  were   not   being 

augmented.      And  those  were  the  funds   that   I  was  trying  to  get  the 
State   of   California  to  augment   so  we   could  take   care   of   the 
situation,    but   the  legislature  was   totally  unresponsive,    as  was 
Mr.    Vasconcellos — and   that's  where   the  augmentation  had   to    start. 
His   committee  was  totally  unresponsive.      Their  consistent  answer 
was,    "Well,    that's   a  federal   program,    and  any   augmentation   should 
come  from    the  federal   government."     That  was  certainly  an 
insensitive  answer  as  far  as   I  was    concerned. 

I  could  see  what  was  coming:      the  federal   money  was  going  to 
dry  up  in  due   course;    it  was  just   not   going  to   grow   rapidly 
enough   to  meet   the  needs,    and  we  were  going  to  be  faced 
continually  with  having  to   shrink   the   size   of   the   programs   to 
match   the   dollars  available,    and  we  had  to  provide   some  kind  of 
backstop   contingency   fund,    to  meet  anticipated   obligations. 


164 


Lage:  Would  it  have   been   possible   to  reallocate,   as   the  legislature 

told  you  to?      What  was  the  difficulty   with  that? 

Kendrick:  Not   unless   I   discharged   staff. 

Lage:  You'd  be    discharging  people   in  other   programs. 

Kendrick:  Yes. 

Lage:  And  hiring  them   in  this  program. 

Kendrick:      Yes.      It   didn't  make   sense   to  me.      As  long  as    those    other 

programs  were  meeting  some  needs  too.      Reallocation  is  a   popular 
suggestion  of   budget  analysts,    but   in   people-concentrated 
programs  it  is   difficult   to  achieve  without    significant  layoffs. 
In  the  Agricultural  Experiment   Station,   about   eighty    percent    of 
the   faculty    have   tenure.      You   can't    discharge    those    people, 
except  for   cause.      You   can   separate   them   if    there  is  a    critical 
budget   stringency,    but    not  just   to  reallocate   funds. 

Lage:  So  your  hands  were  not   completely  free. 

Kendrick:      No,    I  was   not  free   to  take   what  was  perceived  to  be   a  fairly 

large  and   significant   allocation  to   the   Division   of  Agriculture 
for  programs  and  reallocate  that  every  year  to  programs  which 
seemed  to   be  surfacing.      Although   that's  really   a  fundamental 
problem   for   the  University  as  a  whole,    it  presented  me  with  a 
problem  for  almost  all  of  the  eighteen  and  a  half  years   I  was 
responsible  for   the  agricultural    program.      The  only   way    I   could 
really  establish  a  new   program  was  to   get  new   money  because   I 
couldn't  free  up  enough   existing  committed  funds   to  really   make  a 
difference.      That's   because   the  money  was   primarily    tied  up  in 
the   salaries   of    people. 

Lage:  Now,    the  people  you  put   in  charge,    or  who  were  put   in  charge   of 

the  nutrition  education,    came  from   a  more   traditional    program. 
Is  that  the  case? 

Kendrick:  That's  true. 

Lage:  Had  they   been  involved  with   nutrition  education? 

Kendrick:  Some   of   them. 

Lage:  But   in  a  more  middle-class   setting,    or — ? 

Kendrick:      In  a   different    client  audience.      During   the  war.    World  War   II, 
there  was  a  big  effort  made   by   extension  to  help  in  the  Victory 
Garden  movement   by  helping  people  identify   things   they   could   grow 
and  teaching  them    how    to  grow    the  vegetable  crops.      They   also 
were  involved  in  teaching  people  how   to   preserve    their   produce   by 


165 


Kendrick:      canning  or  freezing  methods.      So  extension  had   the   talent  for 
that  kind  of   education  program.      But   they   weren't   dealing  with 
migrants;    they  weren't   dealing  with  farm  labor   people — 

Lage:  This  must   have   created  problems  in  personnel,    because   the 

traditional  extension  people  were  supervising  aides  who   came  out 
of    these   communities   that   the  supervisors  had  very   little 
connection  with    previously. 

Kendrick:      That's   true.      The  main  problem   came  when  we  had  to  cut  back  the 
work  force  and  we   didn't   cut   back  traditionally  longtime 
employees   of    extension.      The  ones  whom  we  had  to  separate  were 
the  last  employed,    the  least  educated,    who  were  most  in  need   of 
employment.      I   must   say   the  program  wasn't  a   total   loss  because 
we  trained  a  lot  of   people  along  the  way  who  moved  on  into  other 
employment   positions  and   didn't   stay   with  us.      They    found  full- 
time   positions  elsewhere.      So  that   part   of    the   program  was 
completely  successful   because  we  helped  a  number  of   people  gain 
employment  elsewhere. 

But    I'm  kind  of   critical    of    the  program  because   to  some 
extent  it   duplicated  the  programs   of   some   other  agencies   of 
government  where  working  with  the  poor  was  primarily  their  main 
assignment,   and  it  was  not  necessarily  extension's  main 
assignment;    it's  only   one   of    many   programs.      I   think  our   program 
has  become  more   of  an  employment  opportunity   program   than  a 
nutritional    education  program,    and  that's   not  what  extension  is 
all   about.      It's  not   primarily   a   stepping-stone   to   other 
employment    opportunities. 

Lage:  It    seems   in  conception  like   a   really  good  program;   extension  has 

the  mechanism  in  place  for  reaching  out  into   the   community. 

Kendrick:      True.      But   there  is  also   the  county   health  department,    and  the 

county  welfare   department,    and  food  stamps  are   available.      Why   do 
you  need  another   agency   to  address  the   same  target  audience? 
That's  really   the  main   problem,    I    think,   with  extension's 
nutritional    education  program.      I  have   to  say,    however,    that   I 
think   California  has   one   of    the   best  nutritional   education 
programs   in  the  country,    and  I   don't   think  it  was  a  loss  at  all, 
but  it    certainly   caused   a  lot   of    personnel    problems. 

Lage:  I   think  you  were  going  to  lead  into  some  of   that,    I  misdirected 

you — 

Kendrick:      Well,     that's   a   little   ahead  of    the  story,    and   I'll  get  into  that 
when  we  spend  more   time  on  extension.      This  social    climate   did 
not   prevail    early   in  the  program,    but   gradually   developed  after 
the  first   two  or   three  years   of   its   successful   implementation. 


166 


Lage:  So  this  nutrition  education  program  and  the  mechanization  were 

issues  early   on? 

Kendrick:      Yes,    relatively   early   in  my   tenure.      The  nutrition  education 

program  was   initiated  about   1970   or  '71.      The  mechanization  issue 
was  an  issue   almost  from    the  start  of   my   tenure  as  vice 
president. 


The  University's  Development   of    the  Tomato  Harvester 


Kendrick:     Let  me   say   a  little  bit  about  the  tomato  harvester  because   it  was 
such  a   unique    case,    and  it  occupied  a  lot   of   my    time. 

Tomatoes   in  California,    the  large   fields   of    tomatoes,    are 
grown  for   processing — ketchup  and  paste  and   soups.      Up  until 
about   1964,    they    were  harvested  by   hand  by   a  labor  force   that  was 
largely   transient  from  Mexico.      They  were  imported  legally   for 
the  period  of    time   needed  to  harvest   the  produce,    and  called 
braceros.      About   1964,    my   predecessor,    Dan  Aldrich,    participated 
on  a   panel    to  study   farm  labor.      As  a  result  of    the  panel's 
study,    they  recommended  phasing  out   the  bracero   program,    which 
ultimately  was  done.      The  bracero  program  was  terminated  about 
1965.       So   Aldrich's   activity    occurred    before    1965. 

Going  back  even  further.    Jack  Hanna,    an  experiment    station 
employee  in  the  Department  of  Vegetable   Crops  at   Davis,    responded 
to  a  farmer's  question  one   day   about   "What  would  ever  happen  to 
us   if  we   didn't  have   the   bracero   program?"     His   response  was, 
"Well,    we've  got   to  find  a  way    to  harvest   these    things 
mechanically.  " 

So   ten  or   twelve  years   before  1964,    Jack  Hanna  was  busy 
breeding  a  variety  of   tomato  with  a   compact  vine  with    the  fruit 
that  ripened  all   at  once.      This  was   the  key    to  the  concept    of   a 
mechanical  harvester  because   to  harvest   the  field  it   is   necessary 
to  destroy   the  vine  by   pulling  it  from    the  ground,    lifting  it 
onto  a   shaker   that   shakes   the   dirt  and  fruit   off    the  vine  and 
carries   the  fruit   onto  another   conveyer  belt  where  workers  riding 
the  harvester  finish   the  hand   culling. 

Jack  Hanna   got  Coby   Lorenzen  of    the  Department   of 
Agricultural   Engineering   of   Davis   interested  in   designing   this 
mechanical    harvester.      So  by   1964,    the   two   of    them    had  pretty 
well   completed  the  necessary   breeding  and  mechanical    design 
necessary    for   harvesting  these   tomatoes  mechanically.      They   had 
interested  a  manufacturing  firm  in  Rio  Vista,    the  Blackwelder 
Manufacturing  Finn    in  putting  the  machine   together  as  a 


167 


Kendrick:      commercial  venture,      so  that  they  would  have   something   that   the 
farmer   could  use   that  wasn't  just  an  experimental   machine  from 
the  University. 

So  when  the  bracero  program   ended — 

Lage:  Was   there  any  connection  between  the  ending  of    the   program  and 

the  fact   that   this  harvester  was   in  place,    do  you  think? 

Kendrick:      No,    that  was   serendipity.      The   thoughtful  ness   of   the   program  was 
that  Coby   Lorenzen  and  Jack  Hanna  had  foresight  enough  back  a 
dozen  years  or  so  to   begin  thinking  about  what   they  would  do  in 
case   something  happened  to  the  labor   supply.      That  was  a  dramatic 
anticipation  of   something  which  eventually   did  happen.      There  was 
a  lot   of    money    invested  in  the  processing  of    tomato  plants.      The 
processing  of  tomatoes  was  the   backbone   of    the   canning  industry 
in   California.      It   supported  the  peach   canning,    pear  canning,    and 
all    the  rest   of    the  fruit    canning  operation.      Tomato   canning 
really   was   the  money-maker.      That  industry   was  very   nervous  about 
the  ending  of   the  bracero  program  because   of  what  it  might   do  to 
tomato  production,    and  to  this   processing  industry.      They   were 
prepared  to  move  it  to  Mexico  where  the  labor   supply  would  be 
available   if    they    had   to. 

Well,    because   of    these  early  machines  and  their 

availability,    between  1964  and  1968  fields  harvested  mechanically 
went   from    ten  or  fifteen  percent   to  nearly  ninety  percent  in  a 
short  four-year   period.      No  other  agricultural   development  really 
has   developed  quite  that  rapidly.      It  was  a  very   dramatic   change 
in  the  way  of  handling  tomatoes:      the   tomato  variety   changed  and 
the  mechanical   harvesters  were  everywhere — 

Lage:  Did  it  affect   the   size   of   the  operation?      Did  you  have  to  have   a 

larger   operation  to  make   use   of   the  harvesting  machine? 

Kendrick:      Acreage  was  increased.      You   don't   use  a  tomato  harvester   en   two 
acres   of    tomatoes.      It's  a  fairly  expensive  investment.      A  part 
of  the   criticism   of   the  University   program  is   that   by   developing 
the  harvester  we  forced  small   farmers  out   of  business,    and  only 
the   large  farmers   could  survive.      Well,    the  records   show    that   a 
lot  of   those  who  grew   tomatoes  previously  were  not  growing  these 
processing  tomatoes  following   the  introduction  of    the  harvester. 
That   didn't  mean  they   went   out   of   business;    they   just   changed 
their   crop  and   grew    something   different,   not  tomatoes.      Or   they 
sold  their  small  acreages  to  larger  growers  where  it  was 
economical   to   use   a  harvester. 

Also,    the  critics  overlooked  the  fact   that   the  industry   was 
going  to  move  out   of    California,    period.      The   processors  were 
prepared   to  move.      There  wouldn't  have  been  any   place   for   the 


168 


Kendrick:  small  tomato  grower  to  peddle  his  crop  anyway.  But  that's  all 
part  of  the  rhetoric  that  you  have  to  deal  with  in  any  kind  of 
testimonial  situation  when  you're  dealing  with  this  problem. 

In  1972,    a   person  who  is  presently   the  commissioner  of 
agriculture  for  Texas  named  Jim  Hightower  published  a   book 
filled — and  I'll  show    my   prejudice — with  half-truths,    called  Hard 
Tomatoes,    Hard  Times. 

Lage :  Now,   you  have   to  admit   that   the   tomatoes  are  hard.      [laughter] 

I'll    show    my    prejudice. 

Kendrick:      Yes,      I'll  show   you  mine,    too.      The  problem  with  that  book  and 
the  allegation  is  that  he  was    condemning   the  harvester,    and   the 
thick-skinned  tomato  that  was  developed  for   the  mechanical 
harvester,    not  only   thick-skinned,    but  it  was   thick- fie  shed.      The 
locules   inside  were  full   of   flesh,    and  not   the  usual   kind   of 
tomato  with  a  lot  of   gelatinous  material   and  openness — those  in 
the   trade    call    it   "high    in   solids."     Less  water,    and  more   solids. 

Lage:  Is   that   because  it  was  less  easily   bruised? 

Kendrick:     Yes,    well   they   wanted  more   solids  for  carrying  it  in  the  harvest 
equipment  and   the   conveyors   afterward.      You  know,   you  see   these 
tomatoes   going  down  the  highway   in  these  great  big  bins?      You  can 
imagine  what  the  tomato  on  the  bottom  would  look  like  if   it 
didn't  have    some   sort  of   solid  structure  to  preserve  itself  and 
not   become  a  bunch  of   paste  in  the   bucket. 

The  allegation  throughout   the  book  was   that  the  agricultural 
scientists  had  lost   sight  of    the  fact   that   they   were    dealing  with 
quality   products,    and  they   were  responding  to  the  needs   of 
agribusiness  again,    the   canning  industry,    by   developing   this 
tasteless,    hard  tomato — they   were  about   like  a  golf  ball — at  the 
expense   of  really  being  concerned  with  what   the    consumer  wanted. 
The  fallacy   of    that  argument  was  that  the  tomato  industry   in 
California   utilizing  the  harvester  was   the  processing  tomato.      In 
all   the  years  when  I  was  the  vice   president,    no  one  wrote  to  me 
and  complained  about   the   taste   of   ketchup   or   paste.      That's   where 
those    tomatoes   go.      They    were  not  fresh-market   tomatoes. 

Lage:  And  also  the   canned? 

Kendrick:      Well,    even  those   are  a   different  variety.      The  reason  that  we 

have  such  a  lousy  tomato  in   the  fresh  market  is  not   because   they 
were   bred  for  mechanical   harvesting;    it's   because    they're  grown 
away  from   the   source   of   the  retail  market.      Even  when   I  was 
working  as  a   plant   pathologist  trying  to  control   some   tomato 
blight    diseases   in   southern  California  in  San  Diego   County,    the 
standard  practice   of    harvesting  those   tomatoes  was  to  pick  them 
when  they  were  what  was   called   "pinks,"  the    shoulder   of    the 


169 


Kendrick:      tomato  was  just   beginning  to  turn  from   green  to   orange.      If  you 
picked  them   any    later   than  that,    they   would  destroy   themselves 
before   they   ever   got   to  market.      They  subsequently   found   that 
they   could  make   those  rocks  look  like   tomatoes  by   submitting  them 
to  ethylene   gas.    a  natural   product,   and   they  would  ripen  up  and 
look  red  as  they   could  be,    but   if  you  pick  a   tomato  green,    it's 
never   going  to   get  any   better   than  the    day  you   picked   it.       It's 
not  like   a  honeydew   melon  which  gets  a  little  sweeter  and  softer 
after  you  take  it  home  and  let  it   sit  around  a  while.     But   not   a 
tomato. 

There's   plenty   of    room    to  condemn  the  way  you  handle  fresh 
market  tomatoes,    and  I  will  join  the   crowd  that  would  criticise 
their   taste,    but    it's   because  you  have   to  buy   a  vine-ripened 
tomato   pretty   close   to  its   source  in  order   to   get  a   good  tomato. 
If   the  Bay  Area  are  buying  tomatoes  that  are  produced  in  Mexico 
or  San  Diego    [laughs],    it's  not    going  to   be  a    good  quality 
product. 

Lage  :  So   that's  a   separate  problem — 

Kendrick:      That's  a   separate  issue  altogether.      But  Hard   Tomatoes,    Hard 

Times   did  not  make    that   distinction.      It  was  used  as  another  bit 
of   evidence   that  agribusiness  again  had  captured   the  activities 
and  the  research   programs  of    these   publicly   supported  programs. 
The   book  was   published  in  1972   by    the  Washington   D.C.-based 
foundation,     the  Agribusiness  Accountability    Project. 

fi 

Lage:  Did  they   use   California  in  particular  as  a   case   in  point? 

Kendrick:      They  sure   did. 

Lage:  — because  you're  the  ones  that   developed  it. 

Kendrick:      Yes.      Florida   came  in  for  a   certain  amount   of   criticism,   but   the 
harvester  was   the  focal   point   of    the  criticism. 

Lage:  Now,    this  man  is  now   commissioner   of  agriculture? 

Kendrick:     Yes,     in   Texas.      He's   a   Texan.      Texas   elects   its  agricultural 

commissioner.      He's  a   politician  and  aspires  to   be   governor    or 
some   other   elective   officer. 

In  talks    I've   given,     I've   tried  to  identify    what  I   thought 
were  major  landmarks   that  pushed  for   change  in  the  agricultural 
awareness,    at  least   in  the  research   programs.      Each   of    these   was 
kind  of   resentfully   received  and  caused  us   a  lot   of   anguish.      We 
felt  abused  by   being  falsely   accused  of   conspiracies  and  so 
forth,    but   they   did  have  an  impact,   and   they  were   not   all  wrong. 


170 


Kendrick:      The   things   I've    cited — the  first  turning   event  was   Rachel    Carson, 
who   really   drew   attention  in  a  dramatic  way   to  the  fact   that  we 
were   destroying  the  environment  by  not   paying  attention  to  what 
any   of    these   pesticides  that  we  were  using  to  kill   the  bugs  was 
doing  to   the   bird  populations.      This  was   a  first   in   calling 
attention  to   the   adverse   effects  of   DDT  and  other   insecticides. 
She   published  her  book   Silent   Spring  in  1962.      At   that   time,    we 
were,    as  a  land-grant   institution,    emphasizing  production 
agriculture  at   the  expense   of    the    consumer's    desires,    labor 
needs,    and  all   that.      So   the   two  books.    Hard  Tomatoes,    Hard  Times 
and   Silent   Spring,    published  a   decade  apart,    called  attention  to 
three   concerns:      farm   labor   displacement,    quality   of   produce,    and 
effects   of   pesticides  on  the  environment.      Each  has  had  an   impact 
on   changing   the   emphasis  of    agricultural    research. 

Now    there  is  another  one   that  we're  having  to    deal  with,   and 
that's  Jeremy    Rifkin's    concern  about   what  biotechnology    is  apt   to 
do  about   upsetting   the   naturalness   of    things.      He   sues  and 
countersues   the   testing  of    the  ice-minus   microbe   in  the  field  and 
claims  that  we   don't  know   what  we're   doing  sufficiently  well   by 
introducing  these   genetically   altered  strains  of   microbes  into 
the  environment.      He   suggests   that   they   could   take   over  and 
produce   adverse   consequences   that  we  are  not  able   to  handle. 
Rifkin  has  not  written  a  book  on  the   subject,   but  he  and  his 
small  enterprise  have  caused  the  biotechnology   movement 
considerable  extra  work  and  resentment.      This   is   the  fourth 
impact   on  changing  the  way  agricultural   research   is  being 
conducted  today.      If  we   can   swallow   our   pride  and   that  initial 
reaction  to  say,    "What  the  hell  does  he  know    about   it,"  and 
realize   that   the   general   public  really   doesn't    understand  what 
these   scientists  are  up  to,    we  can  make   these   changes  and  be 
better   off   for   doing  so.     But   the   public   knows   that    some  adverse 
developments  have   come  from   science   and  if   it   can't  be   reassured 
that   nothing  but   good  can   come  out   of   scientific   discoveries,    it 
is  not   sure  that   the  risk  is  worth   taking.      Science   has  a 
continual  job  to  inform   the   public  fully  about  what  it  is   doing 
to   benefit    society. 


Regents'    Meeting  on  Mechanization  and  Labor  Displacement,    1978 


Kendrick:     These   are  all    forces   that  get  your   attention  and  you  respond. 
You  ignore   them  at  your   own   peril.      So  here    I  inherited   the 
Rachel   Carson  concern  for   environment,    and  I  was  right  in  the 
middle  of   the  Hard  Tomatoes,    Hard  Times  mechanical  harvest 
controversy    that   is   still    in  existence.      And  that   concern 
progressed   through   the  legislature   to   the   next   big  event  in  the 
mechanical    argument,    at  a  Regents'    meeting.      That  resulted  in  the 


171 


Kendrick 


Lage: 

Kendrick: 

Lage: 

Kendrick: 


Lage: 
Kendrick: 

Lage: 
Kendrick: 


first   public   session  of    the  Regents    devoted  to  one   topic,    in 
which    external    testimony   was  invited.      They   were  meeting  in  the 
Convention   Center  in  Los  Angeles  on   February   16,    1978.* 

There  was   so  much   pressure  about   the  issue — by   letters — that 
the  lieutenant   governor,    Merv    [Mervyn]    Dymally,    a  Regent, 
requested  a    public  hearing  at  a   Regents'    meeting. 

So  it    came   through   the   political    officers — 


Right. 

And  how    about   the  other  regents? 
Button   stand? 


Where  did  people  like   Fred 


Fred  was  not  on  the  board  at  the   time.      His   term   expired,    or  he 
didn't  attend   that  meeting.      But   this  hearing  in  Los   Angeles 
became  quite  an  affair.      They    moved  to  a  large  room   to 
accommodate  the  audience  and  to  listen  to  about   thirty  witnesses 
with   prepared  talks.      Tom  Hayden  was  one  of   the  witnesses;   he  was 
not  an  assemblyman  at  the  time,    but  he  was  at   the  height   of   his 
advocacy   of   his  California  campaign  for  Economic  Democracy,    which 
proposed  redistribution  of  wealth  and  land   ownership.      Cesar 
Chavez    was   the   star  of    the  show   because  he  appeared  in  kind  of   a 
dramatic  march  down  the   center  aisle  to   the   table  to   give  his 
statement   about  what  had  happened  to  the  farmworkers  because  of 
the  University's   program.      I  also   gave  a   statement,    in  much  less 
dramatic   fashion. 

Was  it  a  tough  act   to  follow? 

I    didn't   think  so.      I'm   not   being   disrespectful;    he  had   the 
charisma  and   the  following,    but — 

And  sort  of    the  emotional    appeal. 

I   didn't  have  to  follow   him.      I  was   the  first   to   give   a 
statement.      So   they   all   had  to  follow    my   statement.      But    I  had 
arranged  for   the  Regents  to  hear  a   balanced   presentation.       It 
wasn't  at  all   going  to  be   like   I   had  experienced  in  Sacramento 
where   I  felt  like   I  was  in  a  kangaroo   court.      It  was  really  kind 
of    an   interesting  afternoon.      Long,    and  inconclusive,    because 
there  were   sincere  representations   of  a   concern  expressed  by   both 


*  On   deposit   in  University   Archives,    The  Bancroft  Library,    are  1) 
the   oral   statements  made  and  letters  received   by   the  Regents' 
Committee  on  Educational   Policy   in  regard  to  Farm  Mechanization 
Research  for   the   February  16,    1978,    hearing;    2)  a  summary    of 
these   materials   prepared  by   the  Division  of   Agricultural    Sciences. 


172 


Kendrick:      pro  and   con  mechanical   aids  versus  labor   needs  and    the  like. 
There  were  a  few   allegations  that  were  rather  unfounded  and 
unfactual.    I   thought,    but   they   were   not  really   significant.      They 
were   emotional    appeals  about   "I  lost  my   job,    and  what  are  you 
going  to   do  about   it?" 

The  proposed  remedy    really   was  not  that  the  University 
researchers   cease  and   desist   their  work  in  these  areas,   but   that 
because   they   were  causing  labor  displacement,    it  was  felt   that 
the  field  workers  ought  to  be   compensated  in  some  fashion  for 
their  loss  of   jobs.      And  it  was  alleged   that   it  was   the 
University's  obligation  to   provide   that    compensation   for    those 
lost  job  opportunities.      It  was  my   position  that   that  was  not   the 
University's  role;    I  recognized  it  as  a   problem   that   society  had 
to  do   something  about,    but   not   the  University.      As  a   matter   of 
fact,    the  University   prior   to   my   tenure  had  received  a  special 
allocation  from    the  legislature  of    about   $100,000   to  pursue   a 
research  program  in  developing  mechanical   aids   for  harvesting  and 
other   agriculture  programs.      So  we  had  on  the  books   a   special 
appropriation  to  foster  the   development   of  mechanical   aids,    and 
we  had  nothing  on  the  books   to  support  studies  that  would  help 
deal  with  the   problem   of  labor  displacement  and  retraining 
programs,    redirecting  labor   into  other   areas   of — 

Lage:  Did  you  ever  apply  for   that  kind  of   program,    do  you  recall? 

Kendrick:      Yes,    we  had  some  requests  for   that.      But   they   got   lost   in  the 
shuffle    of    budget    building. 

I  also  was  not   enthusiastic  in  applying  for   that  kind  of 
program,    because  we   did  not  really  have  enough  competence  within 
agriculture  to  pursue    those  kinds   of    problems.      The  only 
competence  in  this  area  existed  in  our   departments   of 
agricultural    economics  and  with  an  extension  economist.      We  have 
a  Department  of  Applied  Behavioral   Sciences  at   Davis   that    gave 
some  attention  to  the  problem.      I   don't   think  it  was  as 
thoughtful   as  it    could  have   been.      It  was  largely   a   criticism   of 
what  had  been  done,    and  a   concern  that  they   were  never  allocated 
enough  money  to   do  what   they  wanted  to   do.      And   the    problec  was 
that   they   never  were  allocated  enough  money  because   the  programs 
that   they   applied  for  support  weren't  very   good  as    evaluated   by 
their  colleagues. 

We  had  a   particular  critic  at  the  University  of  California 
at  Santa  Cruz   in  the   sociology   department,    William   Friedland,    who 
had  come  from   Cornell,    who  continues  to  be   concerned  about   the 
sociology   of   agriculture.      His   criticism  is  not   based   too 
strongly   on  factual    information,    though   it's   better   than  some   of 
the   other   stuff    that  has    come    through. 


173 


Kendrick:     But   there's   been   this    constant   current   of   criticism    of    the 

traditional    agricultural    research   programs,    and  it  hasn't  just 
been   Cesar   Chavez   and   the   organized  labor   people  like  him.   but 
it's    been   colleagues   in   the    sociology    department.       I've 
maintained  all   along  that  to  hold   the  Division   of  Agriculture 
responsible   for   this  is   shortsighted.      You  need  to  hold  the 
University   of   California  responsible  for  addressing  some   of    these 
issues,    because   there  we  have  an  Institute   of    Industrial 
Relations   both  on  the  Berkeley   campus  and   the  UCLA  campus   that 
specifically   addresses  labor- management   problems.      They've   got 
talent  and  experience   that    can  address   those   issues.       There's 
nothing  reassuring  by   asking  only  an  agricultural    engineer   to 
understand  what  labor-management   problems  are.      We   do,    as   I   said, 
have   two   or   three   experts  in  our  agricultural   economics 
department  that   I   think  have   produced  some  very   useful 
information  about   labor   and  handling  the  labor.      And  extension 
itself  has   developed  programs  with  specially  employed  personnel 
who  are  trying  to  acquaint  employers  with  how   to  handle  appropri 
ately   agricultural   labor.      And   they've    been  very    good   programs. 

We   haven't   been   ignorant    of    those   needs.      It's  just   been 
hard  for   people  to  recognize   that   they're   not   programs    that  you 
put   millions  of   dollars   into,    so  that  if  you  compare  the  numbers 
of   dollars   going  into  the  ag  engineering  department,    compared 
with   the  numbers   of  dollars   going  into  ag  economics   department, 
there's   a  vast    difference.      But  you're   buying  hardware  and 
machinery    in  the  engineering  departments,    and  you  buy   chalk  and 
paper  and  calculators  and   computers   in  ag  economics.      So   there  is 
a   difference   in  the  required  support,    but  we  pay   the  people   on 
the   same   general  wage  scale. 

Lage  :  Now,    would  it  have  been  your  job  to  ask  for  positions  to  be 

opened  up,    or  to  open  up  positions  to   people  who  had  labor 
expertise   or  economic  expertise? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      It  was   my  job  to   provide  a  budget  adequate  enough  to 
address  the  issues  that  were — 

Lage:  But  you  would  also  tell    them  where  you  wanted   people  added? 

Kendrick:      Yes. 

Lage:  Or  would  each  local   unit — ? 

Kendrick:      Well,    let  me  finish   the  Regents'    meeting,    and  then  I'll  get  into 
that  question. 

After   this  long  afternoon,    the  Regents   closed  off   that 
hearing  with,    "Thank  you  very  much,   we  appreciate  all    of  you 
being  here   today,    and  we  feel   better   informed  about   the   subject," 
and   that    dropped  it.      That  was   the   end   of    it. 


174 


Lage:  No   direction? 

Kendrick:      No   direction  to  me   to  change   my   program  one  iota.      It  was  not 

business  as   usual,   but   I  had   tried  to  respond  to   the  fact   that  we 
were  not   ignoring  the  problem,    that  there  was  more  than  the  issue 
of  just  a  few  jobs  of   picking  tomatoes  at    stake — there  were 
cannery  workers,   who  were  now   employed,   and  who  might  not  be 
employed  without  the  harvester;    there  was   the   processing  industry 
that  was  several   hundred  million  dollars  in  value   that  had 
threatened  to  be   displaced  and  moved  to   Mexico.      So   that  we  had 
retained  an  industry    in  California  by   this  development   that  meant 
much  more  to  the   state  economically   than  just  a  few   field  worker 
positions.      It  was  wrong  to  take   a   snapshot  view   of   the  problem, 
in   my   opinion. 

Without  trying  to  minimize  the  agony   of   the  people  who  were 
losing  their  jobs,   we  tried  to  suggest   to  them   that  it  was   a 
state  problem,    a   social   problem   to  deal   with,    and  not  the 
University's   sole   problem.      So  much  for   that — but   that  was   a  much 
better    episode    than   the  legislative  hearing. 


Legal  Action  Challenging   the  University's  Agricultural    Program. 
1979 


Kendrick:      We   still   had  criticism    from    the  Agrarian  Reform  group  in  Davis. 
lhat  group  continued  to   saw   away  at   the   notion  that  our   program 
ignored  the  needs   of   the  working  people  and  was  primarily 
associated  with  making  farmers  rich.      Ultimately,    the   California 
Rural   Legal   Assistance    [CRLA]    joined  with  this  Agrarian  Reform 
group  at  Davis  and  filed  suit  in  1979   against  a  number   of   named 
individuals,    including  Regents,    the  President,    me,    and  others,    on 
the  basis  that  we  were  misusing  public  funds  and  violating   the 
law:      the  federal   Hatch  Act   and  the  federal    Smith-Lever  Act.      The 
Hatch  Act  is  the  law    that  authorized   the  Agricultural  Experiment 
Station  expenditure  and  that   includes   some  appropriations,    and 
the  Smith-Lever  Act  is   the   one   that  authorizes   the   existence   of 
Cooperative   Extension,    and  allocates   for    that. 


Lage: 


Lage: 


And  when   do   these  acts   date  from? 


Kendrick:      The  Hatch  Act   was   passed  by   Congress   in  1887,    and  the  Smith-Lever 
Act  in  1914.      So   they   go   back.      They've    been   amended   in   the 
meantime   to  update   them,    so   they're   still   in  force   and  still 
current,    and  the  fundamental   description  of  why    they  were 
instituted   is   still   valid. 


And  what    did   they   feel  was   in  violation? 


175 


Kendrick:      As  far  as   the  Hatch  Act  was    concerned,    the    plaintiffs  felt   that 
there  was  a   statement   of    the  intent   of    the  Hatch  Act   that  the 
experiment   station's  activity   should  work  towards  full   employment 
in  the  rural   community.      Now,    there  is  a   statement   that  says  it 
is  the  goal   of   the  Hatch  Act  to  establish   these  experiment 
stations  in  such  a  way   that  they   will  promote  the  economic 
welfare   of  agriculture,    and  establish  the  rural   community   on  a 
par  with  the  urban  community.      In  1887,    the  rural   community   was 
really   disadvantaged.      All    the  wealth  was    concentrated  in  the 
urban  areas,    and  cities  were  favored  ground  as  far  as  society   was 
concerned.      So   that   the  act  addressed  itself   to  neutralizing  some 
of    this   difference   and  provide   the  rural   community   with  attention 
and  research   that  would  match  research   needs  for  industry. 

And  it  had  a   statement   that  it  intended  to  promote  the 
economic  welfare  of  agriculture,    and  all   the   other   things 
including  full   employment.      It   is  not   clear  whether  it  refers  to 
full  rural   employment  or  just  full   employment  in  general — but   the 
suit  hung  itself  on  this  alleged  insensitivity   and  lack  of 
attention  to  full  rural   employment  and  farm  labor  in   particular, 
therefore   alleging  a  violation  of    the  intent   of    that  law. 

They   also  accused  us   of  misusing  the  public   trust.       That's    a 
state   statute  which   says  that  it's  against   the  law    for   any   public 
entity  to  take   public  funds  and   grant   them  to   private  enterprise 
for   private  gain.      Their  assumption  was  that  because  we  were 
active  in  developing  mechanical   aids  which  machinery 
manufacturers   built  and  large   farming  interests  used,    that  these 
were  the  only  beneficiaries,   and  therefore  we  were   taking  public 
money    for   private  gain,    and  that  was  the  violation. 

But  that  wasn't   the  main  example   that   they   hung  their  hats 
on — mostly   it  was   the  fact   that  experiment   station  people  and 
some  extension  people  were  evaluating  chemical   products  from 
chemical   companies  as   to  the  effectiveness  of   herbicides  and 
pesticides.      It  was  perceived  that  we  were   using   those   publicly 
supported  positions  to  provide  information  to  the  chemical 
companies  which  they  otherwise  would  have  to  buy  for  themselves 
at  much   greater   cost  than  a  few   modest   grants- in- aid.      Without 
giving  us   the  benefit  of    the  fact   that  we  were   not    doing  it  for 
the  benefit   of   the  chemical   companies,    we  were  trying  to  find 
something  that  would  control   the   diseases  and   the   pests   of    plants 
and  animals.      So   that  was   the  basis  for   that  argument. 

Lage:  So  it    didn't  just  focus  on  mechanization. 

Kendrick:      No.      They   also   initially  accused  a   few    of   us   of   conflict   of 
interest  because  we  had  some  ties  with  some  other  business 
concerns.      I   did  for   a  while   serve  as  a  member  of   the  board  of 
directors   of    the  Tej  on  Agricultural   Corporation  and  found  it   to 
be    one   of    the  most   beneficial    educational    exposures  of    my   life. 


176 


Kendrick:      It  was  hard  to  translate  to   the  likes   of    the  Agrarian  Reform 

group  that   that  was  an  educational    experience    [laughter].      It  was 
perceived  in  their   eyes  as   providing  Tejon  with  a   special   inroad 
into  the  University.      Several   Regents  were  named  because    they   had 
stock  in  companies   that  were  agriculturally   oriented   or   serviced 
agriculture,    or   they   owned  farm   property.      That   part   of    the   suit 
was   dropped,    very   early   on. 

The  Smith-Lever   part  of    that   suit  was   based  on  the  fact   that 
the  Smith-Lever  Act    does  not   say   specifically   that  extension 
personnel    should  engage   in  research.      And  of   course,    all   the   time 
that   I  was  in  office,    and  prior   to   my   being   there   by   a   couple   of 
years,    extension  made   no  bones  of    the  fact  that  they  were  engaged 
in  an  applied,   localized  research   program,   and  we   expected  our 
personnel    to  engage   in  that  kind  of    program.      And  the  allegation 
was  that  we  were  violating  the  spirit  and   the  language    of    the 
Smith-Lever  Act   by   diverting  Smith-Lever  funds   into  research 
activities  and  not    strictly   extension  activities. 

We  were  prepared  for  a  long  argument  with  that  because 
research  is  research  is  research  is  research.      The  act   does    say 
that  education  was   conducted  through  meetings,    workshops. 
publications,    demonstrations,   and  otherwise.      The   demonstrations 
are  used  by   our   colleagues  in  other   states   to  satisfy   what  we  say 
is  research.      We  were   not  joined  enthusiastically   by  our 
colleagues  in  other   states;    they   just   turned  their  backs   and  ran 
the   other  way  when  the  suit  was  filed.      They   didn't  want   to    get 
swept   up   into  it. 


U.S.    Department   of   Agriculture's  Reaction  to  the  Lawsuit 


Kendrick:      We  had  a  very   difficult  time  getting  the  Department   of 

Agriculture  to  engage  in  any   kind   of   interest  in  this  suit,    and 
in  particular   the  extension  unit   of  USDA.      They    felt    they   would 
have  a  difficult   time,   and   they  would  lose   the   battle   if    they 
recognized  the  fact   that  we  were  engaged  in  research — overlooking 
the  fact  that  we  are  required  to  file   every  year  an  annual    plan 
of   work  in  which  we  describe  what  we're  going  to  do  and  also 
report  what  we  had   done.      They   sign   off   and  approve  it  each  year. 

Lage :  But   then,    when  the   suit   came   up,    they   didn't  want   to  step  in  to 

support — ? 

Kendrick:      When  the  suit   came   up,    they   didn't  want   to  have  a   thing  to  do 

with  providing  us  with  any  testimony   that   the   program  was  a   good 
extension   program. 

H 


177 


Kendrick:      Finally,    out    of   frustration  with   my   federal   extension  office,    I 
resolved  it   by   going  to  the  deputy   secretary   of   agriculture, 
today's    secretary    of   agriculture,     Dick   Lyng. 

Lage:  Now,    what  administration  was   this? 

Kendrick:      This  was   under  John  R.    Block,    of    the  Reagan  administration. 

Under  Bob  Bergland  of    the  Carter   administration,     I   didn't  have  a 
lot    of    sympathy   in  the   secretary's   office.      Early   in  his   life  as 
the   secretary   of   agriculture — he'd  been  a   congressman  from 
Minnesota — he  made  a  tour  in  California  and  had  a   conference  in 
Fresno.      And  of   course,    when  the  secretary   of   agriculture   travels 
around  the   country,    he's   got  an  entourage   of    people  who  want   to 
talk  to  him.       That's   one    office    that   doesn't  have  any    trouble 
drawing  a   crowd.      Although  it's  not  a   cabinet   office   of    the 
stature   of    the  secretary   of   defense   or   secretary   of    state,    its 
constituency  follows   that   secretary   around  like   a  fly   does  a 
piece    of    meat. 

Bergland  listened   to  the  same  kind  of   allegations  that   I'd 
been  listening  to,    and  he  made  a   statement   in  Fresno  to   the   press 
that  he  was   going  to  put   a   stop  to  any    federal    funds   going  into 
any  mechanical   aids  to  harvest.      That   stimulated  me.      I  wrote  an 
editorial   about   "Is   the  Department   of   Agriculture  changing  its 
policy?"     Because  it  was  such  a  sweeping   statement;    they  were 
indicating  that  we  were  going  to  get   the  tractors  out   of   the 
field;   we  weren't   going  to  fund  anything  that  was   a  mechanical 
aid  to  agriculture.      And  I   couldn't  believe   that  a   person  who 
knew  anything  at  all  about  agriculture  would  make   such  a 
sweeping,    blanket   statement. 

And   I   began   getting  calls.      "Are  your   federal    funds   cut 
off?"     "No,"   I  replied,    "they   were   never   touched,    never   in 
j  eopardy.  " 

Lage:  No  follow  up  on  that   statement? 

Kendrick:  Nothing. 

Lage:  What   percentage   of  your   funds  were  federal    funds? 

Kendrick:  About  five   percent. 

Lage:  Oh,    that   small? 

Kendrick:      Five  percent  Hatch   funds.      There  were  a  lot   of    other  federal 

funds   that   go  into   the   total   research   program,    but   not   through 
the  Hatch   fund,     and  that's  what  he  was   talking  about. 


Lage: 


How  about   the  response  from  Earl  Butz?     Was  he  more — ? 


178 


Kendrick:      Earl  was  secretary  under  Richard  Nixon,    much   earlier   than   the 
period  of    the  trial.      Well.    Earl    [laughs]    was  the  typical, 
traditional,    old-line  agriculturalist.      His   support  was 
unshakable.       So  I   had  no  problem  with  Earl    ever. 

I'd  like  to   say  a   bit   more  about   Secretary   Block's    deputy 
secretary   of   agriculture,    Dick  Lyng,    who  is   the  present   secretary 
of   agriculture.      Dick  and   I   started  out  life  together  here   in 
California  with   the  Reagan  administration  as  governor.      Dick  was 
the  deputy  director  of   the  Department   of  Agriculture  at   the    time 
when  I  became   the  vice   president   for   agricultural    sciences.      So 
we  worked  together  for  a  while  until  he  went  to  Washington  to 
become  a  Washington  bureau  man.      A  bureaucrat,    in  a  kind  sense   of 
the  word. 

So   I   finally,    in  frustration,    went   to  Dick  and  said,    "You 
know,     I'm   getting  nowhere  in  the   department."      It  was   resclved. 
Not   enthusiastically   by   extension,     I   might  add.      They    didn't 
provide   the   kind  of   testimony   that   I   think   they    should,    but  it 
was  not  damaging.      But  my  problem  with  the  federal   department   is 
that  they  were  ignoring  a   potential    serious   threat   to 
Agricultural   Extension  nationwide.      If  we  were  to  lose   that  suit 
on  that  issue,    that  meant   that  extension   could  not  and   should  not 
engage    in  any  kind  of   activity   that   passed  as   research.      And  that 
would  just   take   them  out   of   business.      I   don't   think   that    the 
department   and  the  administrators  of   the  federal   extension 
program  appreciated   that  fact  whatsoever.      They   should  have   been 
following  this  much  more  closely  than  that,    and  provided  some 
kind  of   aid  and  assistance,    or   owned  up  to   the  fact   that   they 
were  approving  our  work  plan  every  year. 


The  University's  Response  and  Current   Status   of    the  Suit 


Lage:  It   sounds  as   if  you  took  quite  an  active  role  in  responding  to 

the  legal    suit.      How   did  that  work  within  the  University?      There 
must  have  been  a  whole  array  of  lawyers;   how  much  did  you  have   to 
devote   to  it? 

Kendrick:      Well,    it   didn't   take   a  lot   of    personal    time   from   me,    but    I 
obviously  was  in  touch  with  what   going  on,    was    consulted 
regularly   about    strategy.      The  people  within  the  University 
pursuing  the  legal   aspect   of    the  suit  were  in   the   general 
counsel's   office.      The   thing  that's   amusing  about    that   is   that 
the   California  Rural  Legal  Assistance    group  had  about   two  lawyers. 
They   were  joined  at   one   stage   by   Public  Advocates,    a   public 
interest  law  firm  in  San  Francisco,    where   there  were   two  lawyers. 
They   spent  a  lot   of    time   taking  depositions.      Th-.y    deposed,    or   at 
least   they  had   plans  to   depose,    about    seventy    or   eighty    people. 


179 


Kendrick:      They    filed  suit   in  1979,    and   they   didn't   go  to   trial    until   about 
'84.      All    that   period  was  used  to  depose   and  collect   data  and 
look   through  many  files.      They  would  file  a  brief,   and  our 
general   counsel's   group  would  respond  to  it.      We  wore  out   one 
superior   court  judge  in  Alameda   County,    Judge    [Spurgeon]    Avakian, 
who   got   ill    in  the  course   of    the   trial.      And  so  it  was   declared  a 
mistrial,    and  we  had  to  start  all   over  again  with  another  Alameda 
County    Superior   Court  judge,    Judge    [Raymond]    Marsh.      He  is  a 
sitting  judge   in  Hayward. 

I  became  pretty   well  acquainted  with  a  good  many  members  of 
the   general    counsel's   office,    and   of   course   I  was  a   colleague    of 
the  general    counsel,    the  late  Don  Reidhaar  and  his   successor 
[James  E.   Hoist],   who  took  more   than  a   casual   interest   in  the 
suit.      But  Gary   Morrison  was  the  member   of    the  general   counsel's 
staff  who  really  had   the    primary   responsibility   for   the  suit. 
George  Marchand  was  a  colleague;   Christine  Helwick  was  another 
one.      The   names   of   the   others   don't   come   to  mind,    but   there  were 
about    six  lawyers   in  the  general   counsel's  office  who,    when  the 
CRLA  suit  was  on  the   docket,    were   all  engaged  in   this   thing.      So 
we  had  numerous   conferences   over   strategy   and  what   to  do  next. 

The   status  of   the  suit  now   is  as  follows    (then  we   can  kind 
of   draw    this   session  to  an  end):      I  had  hoped  that  maybe  we  would 
have  this  suit  resolved  before   the   time   I  retired,    but   that  was  a 
hope   beyond  fulfillment.      On  the  research   issue   as  far  as 
extension  was   concerned,    the  judge  in  Alameda  County,   Judge 
Marsh,    has   indicated  that  he  does  not  agree  with   the  allegation, 
and  he  is   prepared  to  rule   that   that's  not  an  issue.      He  would    be 
ruling  in   favor   of    the  University,    on  that  point.       (This   is  a 
trial    before    the  judge;   there's   no  jury    involved.) 

The  plaintiffs  on  their  own  dropped  the  conflict   of   interest 
allegation — 

Lage :  Do  you  know  why   they   did  that? 

Kendrick:      They   didn't  have  a   case. 

Lage:  They   just   couldn't   develop  anything. 

Kendrick:      No.      They  have  also   dropped   the  public   trust  act  violation.      We 
were  prepared  to  go   to  bat  on  that   one  because  we  thought  we'd 
win  that  fairly  easily.      That  leaves  just   the  experiment 
station — 

Lage:  The  Hatch  Act. 

Kendrick:      The  Hatch  Act.      Now,    the  judge  has   indicated  that  he  feels  the 

University   does  not  have  a   process  to  evaluate   proposed  research 
projects  on  whether   or  not   they   are  going  to  cause   an  adverse   or 


180 


Kendrick:      a  beneficial   impact  on  farm  labor  and   small   farmers.      And,    in  one 
of    these   conferences   that  we  had  with   the  general    counsel's 
office,   at   their   suggestion,    as  a   strategy,   we  agreed  to   accept 
that   allegation,    accept    the  judge's   ruling.      Because,    as    I    said, 
we   can't   prove   that  we  have  a   process   that  evaluates  each   project 
on  the  basis   of   whether   or  not   there  will   be  a  benefit  or  adverse 
effect  on  agricultural   labor  and   small   farmers.      And  we    don't 
think  we  have   to.       That's   not   the  way  you  evaluate   projects. 
There's   nothing  in  the  law,    in  the  Hatch  Act,     that    says   the 
program   is   developed  to  aid  small   farmers,    and  the  judge's 
interpretation  was  that  we  were  supposed  to  evaluate  each 
research   project   on  its  impact   on  small   family   farmers  and  labor. 

Lage:  But,   not   necessarily   evaluating  impacts  on  the    processing 

industry  and  other  industries? 

Kendrick:  No.  It's  very  specific.  But  the  Hatch  Act  itself  says  nothing 
about  size  or  ownership  of  agriculture.  It  just  says  develop  a 
healthy  agricultural  economy  and  aid  in  the  full  employment. 

Well,    the  judge   also  is  asking  the  University   to  provide  him 
with  a   proposed  process  of  how  we  would  go  about    doing   this 
evaluation.      It's   obvious    that  we've  lost    that   issue    at   this 
level,   which  is  a  very  fundamental  issue  as  far  as  we  are 
concerned.      And  so  in  the  interest   of   speeding  it  along  and 
getting  it  into   the  appellate    court,   we  agreed  to   the 
stipulation.       And   that's  where   it   is. 

Lage:  Now.   when  you  say   "in  the  interest   of   speeding  it   along — ?" 

Kendrick:  We'll  appeal  to  the  District  Court  of  Appeals.  Just  as  soon  as 
he  makes  that  ruling,  the  appeal  will  be  filed.  We've  read  the 
Hatch  Act  too. 

Lage:  How    does  having  this  kind  of   gigantic  suit  hanging  over  your  head 

and  over   the  entire   division — how    does   that   affect  you? 

Kendrick:     Well,    there  was  no  punitive  action.      I  wasn't  going  to  go   to 

jail,    wasn't    going  to   be  fined,    or  anything  like    that — it  was  an 
annoyance.      I    felt   that,    in  the  first   place,    it's  a   social 
argument;   it   does  not   belong  in   courts.      When   the   trial   actually 
got  activated  and  started  in  Alameda   County   with  Judge  Avakian.    I 
was   down  there  the  first   day,    and  it  was   a  media   event.      I  also 
made   sure   that  we  were  not  unilaterally  outrepresented  by   the 
critics,    that  we  had  some  farm   people   coming  from   the  local 
areas.      It  was  a  small  courtroom,    filled  with  more  people   than 
there  was  space  for.    and   the  media   trying  to   get   pictures  and 
interviews. 

Lage:  It  had  a  lot  of  public  interest. 


181 


Kendrick:     But   the  interesting   thing  is   that   the   plaintiffs  read   the  initial 
statement,   and  it  went  on,   and  on,   and  on,   and  on.      It  got  to  be 
past   two   o'clock,    and   two-thirty.      Well,    it  was    getting  past   all 
the  deadlines,    and  all   the  media  people  were  picking  up  their 
stuff  and   they  were   getting  out   of   there   by   that   time    [laughs]. 
It  was   really  kind  of   a  lost   cause.      Well,    I  had  an  opportunity 
to  make  a  few   comments,    so  that  we  were  not   devoid  of  at  least 
having  our   difference   of    opinion  expressed.      Marjorie  Sun  from 
Science  magazine   came  out  to   cover   that  opening  trial,    and   I 
spent   some  time  with  her.      I  felt   that  my  viewpoint  was  fairly 
represented  by   the  media;   I   don't  feel    that  we  were  roasted 
unchallenged. 

But   the  CRLA  knows  how    to  use   the  media  very   effectively, 
even  more  so  than  the  academic  community   that  I'm  associated  with 
does,    and  their   timing  in  using  the  media  was  also  very  good.      I 
think  that  our   public  information   group  needs  to  tone  up   a  little 
bit   and   play   that  game   professionally   and  not  just   react   to  it. 

But   the   problem,   as   I   say,    that   I  had  with   the   trial,    is 
that   they   began  to  assemble   their  expert  witnesses.      One  came 
from  Cornell,    and  one   came  from  UC  Santa   Cruz,    and  one  agricul 
tural   economist  who  had  retired  from   Missouri  and  was  living  in 
California.      Their  testimony  was   this   same  kind   of    theme   of 
agrarian  reform,    that   the  ownership  in  agriculture  was  in  the 
hands   of   business  and  business-oriented  activities  and 
enterprises;   it  was   getting  bigger  and  bigger;   and  the  University 
was  forcing  it   into   bigger  units.      The  University  was   charged 
with   paying  little  attention  to  the  sociological   displacements 
that  were   taking  place  for   people  engaged  in  agriculture,   and   the 
exploitation  of   labor   to  the  gain  of    the  business   community. 

There  really  was  no  truth  to   the   allegations.      There 
certainly    is   no   conspiracy    as  far  as   the  University    is   concerned. 
They  were  attempting  to  lay  the   groundwork  to  prove  that  we  were 
using  public  money    for   private  gain;    that  we  were  engaged  in 
research  which  we   shouldn't   pursue;  and  to   demonstrate   that  large 
farm  units  caused  poorer  surrounding  communities  than  small  farm 
units.      The  witnesses   compared  agricultural    development  in  the 
west   side   of    the  San  Joaquin  Valley   with   that  in  the  east   side 
of    the  San  Joaquin  Valley,   where   there  is   a  lot   of   difference 
other   than  just   size   of    the  farms.      The  west   side  is  made  up  of 
large  acreages   of   primarily   cotton  and   grain.      They   got 
themselves   into  trouble  with  selenium   and  dust  and  poor 
economics,   and   their   community  support  areas  are  not  very   good. 
They're  younger,     for    one    thing. 

The  east   side   is  a   much  more  pleasant   side   of   the  San 
Joaquin  Valley   to  live   in.      There  are    older   established 
communities;   there  is  orchard-type   agriculture.      They   tend  to  be 
smaller   units   because  you   don't    generally  have  a    thousand  acres 


182 


Kendrick: 


Lage  : 
Kendrick: 


of  tree  fruits  and  nuts  under  one  ownership.  Water  availability 
is  different,  and  there  are  just  a  lot  of  differences  other  than 
size  of  the  agricultural  units. 

But   the  discussions  were  all  sociologically-based 
differences   of   opinion,   and  it  was   a  little   bit  like   the  Bork 
hearings.      Do  you  want   to  legislate  from    the  bench,    or   do  you 
want  to  interpret  the  existing  law?      I  am  an  unabashed  exponent — 
I   don't  want   the  judicial   branch  making  law.       I'm  perfectly 
willing  to   go  to  Sacramento,    to   the  legislature,   and  argue  and 
agonize   and  go   through   this  whole   process,    because    they're 
charged  with  the  responsibility   of   paying  attention  to   societal 
needs.       But    it   does   not   belong  in  the   court. 

Did   the   tension,    the  media   tension,    subside? 


It    evaporated  very   quickly, 
[laughter] 


Lasted  twenty- four   hours. 


Academic  Freedom  and  the  Independence   of    the  Regents 


Lage:  Did  the  suit  have   the   effect    of   bringing  pressure   to  bear   on  you 

from   the   President's  Office  or  from   the  Regents? 

Kendrick:      No.      Well,    the  active   part   of    the   suit   got   started  in  trial    stage 
at   the  very  end   of   Saxon's   presidency,    and  most   of   it  has    been 
taking  place   under   President   David  Gardner.      David  is   totally 
supportive   of  hanging  in  there  and  proving  our   point.       I  had   no 
particular  pressure  from    the  Board  of   Regents,    other   than  from 
Regent  Vilma  Martinez  at  one   point.      She  was    getting  a  little 
noise   from    some   of    the  plaintiffs   pursuing  the  suit  and  hoped 
that  we   could  reach  an  amicable   compromise  and  give   some 
attention  to  what   the  complaints  were.      But   there's  no  room    to 


compromise   on   this   issue,    as  far  as   I'm   concerned, 
of   academic  freedom   and  intrusion. 


It's  a    case 


One   of    the  interesting  things   about   this — the  constitutional 
independence   of   the  Regents    goes   back   almost   to   the   origin  of    the 
University    itself,    but   not  quite.       It   goes   back  probably   to  the 
1890s.     One   of    the  major   problems   that   the  Board  of  Regents  faced 
back   in  those   1880s,    1870s.    came  from    the  California  Grange.      The 
agricultural   interests  were  really   getting  in  there,   and   they 
were  exercising  an  undue   amount   of   influence,    trying  to  influence 
direction,    because   they   felt   that   they   were   going  to   be 
disadvantaged  in  the  University    if    it   became   a  University   of 
California  rather    than  a   college   of   agriculture,   with   all   its 
resources    devoted   to   their   needs. 


183 


Kendrick:      And   the  resulting  interference   of   this  aggie   group   of    people 
[laughter]    resulted  in  constitutional    independence   for   the 
Regents.      So  here  we  are  115  years  later,    on  the   other   side    of 
the  issue,    in  which   the  people  are   trying  to  influence    the 
direction  and  program    through   the   courts.      Now,    there  are  ways 
to   do   that,    but   not  by    mandating  through   the  courts  that  we  do 
specific   kinds   of    things.      You  ask  the  legislature   to  appropriate 
money,    and  you  fight  it   out.      The  program   in  sustainable 
agriculture  is  a  new   program  responding  to  a  legislative  interest 
and  a   legislative  appeal   by   people  who  felt  that  they   were  being 
neglected   by   the  University's  agricultural    program — people   in 
organic  fanning  and  nontraditional   farming  methods. 

Lage:  So  that   came  in  through  legislative   directives  and  appropriation? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      So   now   we  have  a  fairly   substantial   program  centered  on  the 
Davis   campus,   with  a  new    director,   in  sustainable  agriculture, 
serving   the   new    clientele   that  we  haven't   served  before. 

Lage:  As  we  go  along,    maybe  we   can  talk  about   some  other   programs   that 

have   come   along.       I   think  it's  a   good  stopping  point;    do  you 
agree? 

Kendrick:      Okay,    good. 


184 


X     THE  RESEARCH  BUDGET  FOR  THE  AGRICULTURAL   EXPERIMENT  STATION 


The   Fixed  Costs   of    Permanent  Academic  Staff   Salaries 
[Date   of   interview:      October  16.    1987]    ## 


Lage :  Today    is  October   16,    1987.      This   is   the  eighth   session  with  James 

Kendrick,    and  today  we're   going  to  move  into   the  Agriculture 
Experiment   Station:     administration,    special   problems,    and  new 
research  directions. 


Kendrick:     Yes.      I  believe  at  the  last   session  I   talked  about   modifying  the 
agricultural  advisory   committee  and  broadening  its  representation 
beyond  commodity  agriculture  that  had  been  represented  almost 
exclusively  on  the   previous   committee.      That  was  only   the 
beginning  of    trying  to  broaden  the  research   program   of   the 
experiment   station,    or  at  least  recognize   the  fact   that   there 
were   other   sources  who  were  anxious  to  be  heard  from,    as  well   as 
expecting  some  activity  from  research  conducted  by  members  of    the 
experiment    station. 

I  also  had  referred  to  the  fact   in  an  earlier   session  that 
the  flexibility  of  funding  the  experiment   station  was  really   not 
very   great — even  though   it  had  a  large  budget  of   state- 
appropriated  funds  and  represented  about  60   percent   of    the   state- 
appropriated  money    for   the  University's  organized  research 
category. 

Lage:  And  that's  a  line  item,    directed  to  the  experiment   station? 

Kendrick:      Yes,    it  was   identified  for  agriculture.      And  it  has   always   been 

somewhat   of   a  source    of   envy   by   other   elements  of   the  University. 
If    there's   a  hundred  million   dollar  appropriation  for    the 
University's   organized  research,    agriculture  gets   sixty    million 
of   it.      It  appears   that  Jim   Kendrick,    the  vice   president,    had  a 
sixty    million  dollar  freestanding  research   fund  to  allocate,    and 
that  agriculture  was   particularly   favored  in   the   state  appropria 
tion   over   all    the   other   organized  research   units  of    the  University. 


185 


Kendrick:      There  are   no  other   organized  research   units  in  the  University 
that  fund  as   much   of    the  permanent   staff   as  agriculture  does. 

Lage:  Of    the  University's   permanent   staff? 

Kendrick:      Of   the  University's   permanent   faculty   and  staff. 

Lage:  So  that  budget   pays  for   part   of    the  faculty   salaries   of    those  who 

have  a  dual    appointment   in  a  department  and  in  the  experiment 
station? 

Kendrick:      That's    correct.      About  500   academic   FTE  in  the  experiment 
station,   and  those  500  academic   FTE  are   experiment    station 
faculty. 

Lage:  Could  you  define  FTE  again? 

Kendrick:      Full   time  equivalent,   another  budgetary   term   used  to  identify 
positions  of    the   experiment   station. 

Most  members  of   the  experiment   station  average  about  70 
percent   FTE  in  the   experiment   station- funded  portion  of   their 
salary,    which  is  related  to   the   time   that   they're  expected  to 
spend  on  the  experiment   station  program.      The  balance   of    their 
appointment  and   salary,    or  30   percent,    comes  out   of  another 
budgetary    category   called  instruction  and  research    [I    &  R],      This 
is   the   category   that  funds   the   general   faculty   of    the  University 
of   California,    and  the   title   series  that   is  associated  with  it 
contains    the    professorial    ranks. 

It's   that  mix  of   FTE  between  the  experiment   station  FTE,    and 
the  I   &  R  FTE,    where   the  vice   president  and   the   chancellor  must 
agree   to  fund  when  we  are  allocating  a  vacant   position  to  a  par 
ticular   department  and  program.      So   that   process   drives  a   coopera 
tive   relationship   between  the  President's  Office   and  the   chancellor 
in   deciding  how    the  allocations   of  resources  are  to   be  made. 

But    that   60   percent    of    the  University's  organized  research 
appropriation  is  what   stands  out  in  the   budget.      And   considering 
how    many   organized  research  units  there  are  in  the  total 
University   system,    there  isn't  much  money  left  to   go  around  those 
other   units.      So  what  really   happens  is  that   these   other   units 
wind  up  using   that   state-appropriated  funding  to  fund   their   core 
administrative   staff.      Anybody   who   comes  into  those  units  to 
conduct  a  research   program   depends  largely  on  external    grants  and 
contracts  for   their  supporting  funding.      So  what  in  essence 
happens   is   that   the   state   of   California  is   the   granting  agency 
for   agricultural    research.      Precedent  for   that   goes  back  in 
history,    in  the  fact   that   the   state  and  the  University   in 
partnership  set  up  a   research   program   for   agriculture  to  serve 
agriculture  in  the   state,    and  it  has    continued   ever    since. 


186 


Lage:  Is   that  an  obligation  under   the  land   grant    college  legislation? 

Kendrick:     Yes.      The  mandate   of    the  Morrill   Act   required  instruction  in 

agriculture,   mechanic  arts,   and  military   tactics   to  qualify  as  a 
land   grant   institution.      That's  why   we  find  some  land   grant 
institutions  in  the  United  States   still   bearing  a   title  like 
Texas  A  and  M — Texas  Agriculture  and  Mechanics   Institute.      That 
also,    I   believe,    is   the  reason  why   the   Mechanics   Institute  in  San 
Francisco  maintained  a   spot   on  the  Board  of   Regents  for   so  many 
years,    as  an  ex  officio  member,    because   that  was   a  response   to 
this   same  mandate   that  mechanics  be  a  part  of   the  instructional 
offering  of    a  land   grant   institution. 

So  agriculture  was  embedded  in  the  formation  of   the 
University   of   California  as   a  land   grant  institution. 


Legislative   Protection  for  Agricultural   Research   in  the   1967 
Reagan  Budget 


Lage:  Prior   to  your   coming  to  the  vice    presidency,    in  1966 

reapportionment   of    the   state   legislature  affected  agriculture's 
power  in  the  legislature.     How   did  that  affect  your 
appropriations? 

Kendrick:      It    didn't   affect   the  appropriation  policy   as  much   as  it  affected 
the  environment  in  which  I  found  our   program  received  in 
Sacramento.      Let  me  not  overlook  a  little  incident   that   I 
inherited  that  was  somewhat  difficult  to   deal  with,    stemming  from 
activities   of    the  legislature.      You're  quite   perceptive   in  asking 
about  the  effect   of   reapportionment   of    the  legislature  and   the 
adoption  of    the  one-person,    one-vote  representation  on 
agriculture's   influence   in   the  legislature.      These   actions 
changed  vastly   and  forever   the  kind  of   legislative  influence    that 
rural    California — and  rural   areas   in  other   states — exerted   over 
appropriations  and  programs   that  were  of   public  interest. 

Prior  to   that   change  in  reapportionment  and   the   one-person, 
one-vote  edict,    the  legislature  was   under   the  control    of    rural 
California,    both  in  the   senate  and   the  assembly.      And 
agriculture,    being  as  important  as  it  was  in  the  rural   community 
of   California,    was  an  important   power  to   deal  with.      To   the 
extent   that   they   voiced  opinions  about  what  they   thought  we  ought 
to   be   paying  attention  to,    the  University's   agricultural    division 
usually   responded,    and  the  appropriations  were   supplied  in   due 
course   to   carry   those    concerns   forward. 


187 


Kendrick:      I   don't  mean  to  imply    that   these  appropriations  and   programs  were 
forced  upon  the  University.      Most  were  conceived  and  lobbied  for 
by   interested  University   people.      But   success  in  achieving   these 
appropriations  was  more  certain  in  the  rural-dominated 
legislature.      Some   of   the   successful   programs  and  special 
appropriations  for   them  were  pear  decline,    agricultural 
mechanization,   and  the  establishment   of   the   departments   of 
nematology   at   both  Davis  and  Riverside. 

About  the   time  I   came  up  here,    just   a  year  before,    was   the 
inauguration  of   the  Reagan  years  as   governor    [1967].      He  greeted 
the  University  with  a  budget   cut.      Part   of    the   budget   cut  was   due 
to   trying  to  get   the  bankrupt   state  back  in  good  financial 
condition,   but   I   think  part   of   it  was   due  to  the   general 
unhappiness  he  had  with  what  was  going  on  as  far  as  Vietnam  and 
the  student  activities,    the  Free  Speech  Movement,    and   the  whole 
array   of   protests  that  were  going  on.      Reagan,    representing  the 
kind  of  law   and  order  mentality   that  he   brought  into   that   office, 
was   anxious   to  set   things   in  order.      That's  a  whole   other   story 
which  will   be  revealed  in  other   people's   oral   histories.      But   it 
did  result   in  an  action  in  Sacramento  that  instituted  about  an  8 
percent    budget    cut. 

Lage:  For   the  entire  University? 

Kendrick:      For   the  entire  University.      But  what  happened  as  far  as 

agriculture  was   concerned  was  that  some  of   our  friends — and  I 
don't  know  just  where  they  came  from,    but  I  suspect  it  was   some 
of    the  organized  commodity   groups — prevailed  upon  the  legislative 
representatives  with  whom   they  were   dealing  to  protect  the 
organized   research   appropriation  for   agriculture.      And  they   had 
written  into  the  law   that,    while  the  University  overall  was    going 
to  take   an  8   percent   reduction,    agriculture  was  not   to  be   cut 
more   than  3   percent.      So   the  agricultural   representatives  in  the 
legislature  had  protected  the  program,    at  the  expense   of    the  rest 
of    the   programs  in  the  University,   and  particularly   the   other 
organized   research    units. 

If   I  had  been  on  board  prior   to  that  happening,    I  would  have 
never   allowed   that    differential   to  exist,    because   I  inherited   ill 
feelings   and   ill   will   within  the  institution  that   I   didn't  need. 
If   the  institution  was   going  to  take   a  reduction,    we   should  have 
taken  our   share.      But   that  was  another   environment   that   I  had  to 
deal  with  in  setting  subsequent  budgets   because   I  was   always 
reminded  that  "Yes,    in  1967   you  were  protected,    and  we  had  to 
make   up  your    difference," 

Lage:  The   organized  research   units   still   had  the  overall  8   percent 

reduction? 


188 


Kendrick! 


Lage: 


Kendrick: 


The   overall  8   percent  was   still   enforced.      So   then   some   of    the 
units  less   capable   of    absorbing  that  kind  of    reduction  had  to 
take  more   than  8    percent. 


Now,    who  did  you  hear  from    in  matters  like   this? 
get  these  messages? 


Where  did  you 


Well,     in  the  President's  budget  office   and  other  vice   presidents 
dealing  with  academic  programs.      The  academic  vice    president 
would  remind  me  from   time  to  time  that  the  organized  research 
units   that  reported  to  him   suffered  at   the  expense   of    protecting 
agriculture.      And  in  years  even  President   Saxon  condoned 
allocating  a  larger   cut  into   Cooperative  Extension   than   the  rest 
of    the  institution  was  experiencing,    and  that   resulted  in  another 
political  maneuver  in  Sacramento  which   didn't   sustain   the 
President's   recommendation,    and  the  President's  Office   was   forced 
to  take  another  look  at   allocating  reductions. 

What   I'm   really  describing  is  the  fact   that  agriculture, 
while  not  in  control   of    the  agenda,    was   still   influential   enough 
in  the  political   process   that  it   could  prevent   somebody   else  frcm 
doing  harmful    things  to   them.      So   their  role    changed.      Instead   of 
being  proactive,    in  terms  of    initiating  things,    they   were  being 
reactive  and  played   the  role   of  minority   representation.      Since 
this   state  government   operates — particularly   in  the  appropriation 
process,    the   budgetary   process — on  the   basis   of  line-item  veto   by 
the   governor,    and   the  legislature's   power   to  override    that  veto 
requires  a  two-thirds  majority  in   both  houses  to   do   so,    in  a 
sense,    agriculture  maintained  a  kind  of   protective   skin,    so   to 
speak,    over   the  whole  agricultural   program   in   this   state. 

Well,    sometimes  that  works   to  our  advantage,    and  other   times 
it  is  a   disadvantage.      I  found  my  attitude  was  one   of    trying  to 
live  with   the  whole  and  not   trying  to  exploit  my  differences  with 
the  rest  of   the  institution.      I  felt  it  was   important   that    groups 
other   than  just   the  agricultural    representation  go    to  bat  for 
agriculture.      Otherwise,    in   due   course,    we'd   go   downhill   as   the 
state  became  increasingly  urbanized,    and  as  fewer  and  fewer  units 
in  agriculture    continued  to  exist.      It  just    seemed  to  me   the 
long-term    interest   in  agriculture  programs  resided  in  broadening 
the   program  so  that  it  was  not  just   a  farming  unit    service  area, 
and  that   there  was   some  value   in  offering  its  program   to  those 
consumers  and  urbanites  as  much  as  it   did  to   the   organized 
agriculture.     That  was  a   philosophic  point  of  view    that  I  tried 
to   bring  to   bear   throughout   all   of   my   administration.      And   I 
attempted  to  work  closely   with  my  colleagues  in  the  President's 
Office  and  with  the   chancellors,    to  get   them   to  feel   some    degree 
of   comfort  and  some   degree  of    interest  in  preserving  a   program   of 
research  that  was   clearly  a   public   service-oriented   kind   of 
activity. 


189 


Kendrick:      I  was  reminded  of   this  special  favoritism  for  agriculture   by 

several   of    the   chancellors  at  the  time,    too,    particularly   at  UCLA 
and  Berkeley,    and   they   didn't  like  it  too  well.      The   Davis  and 
Riverside   chancellors  were  less  condemning  of   that  particular 
thing,    because   they  had  a  special   interest  in    [laughs]    not  having 
to   deal    with   that  cut   in  agricultural    research. 

Now,    let  me   get   back  to   the  research  budget  for  agriculture. 
Of    the   total   amount,    about   80   percent  is  associated  with  regular 
faculty  and  staff    salaries.      And   that  is  not  well   understood, 
even  by    members   of    the  budget  group  in  the  President's  Office. 
It  was   that  80  percent   of   the   budget   that  was    directly   allocated 
to  campuses  without   even  coming  through  my  office  which  went  to 
support  the   salaries  of   those  regular  members   of    the   three 
colleges   that  house   most   of    the  personnel   engaged  in  experiment 
station  research.      So  80   percent   of   the  budget  for  agricultural 
research   was   a  non-flexible   state  appropriation. 

Lage:  You   don't  have   control    over  it. 

Kendrick:      No   control. 


The  Field  Station  System.    Tulelake   to  Imperial  Valley; 
Another   Fixed  Cost 


Kendrick:      Now,    the  remaining  20   percent   of   the  agricultural   research  budget 
goes  out  in  various  ways.      There  are  a  number   of   research  units 
that  are   parts  of   the   experiment   station.      We  have   to  support   our 
field   station   system,    consisting  of   nine  locations   in   the   state 
of   California,    all   the  way   from   Tulelake    to  the  Imperial  Valley. 
Tulelake  is  near  KLamath  Falls,    just  across   the   border  from 
Oregon   in  the  very   northeast   corner   of    Siskiyou  County.      The 
Tulelake   station  is  where  the  ice  minus  experiment  was    conducted. 
Tulelake  was   selected  because   it  is  a  potato  growing  area  where 
late   spring  frosts  occur,   and   the   test  was    conducted  on  potatoes 
to  protect   them   from   frost   damage. 

There  are   two  large  range   stations,   larger   than  three 
thousand  acres.      One  is   the  Sierra  Foothill  Range   Station.       It 
was  established  to   study   cattle — cattle   grazing  and   all   the 
problems  associated  with   range-fed  cattle.      It   is  located  east   of 
Marysville,    in  the  foothills   of    the  Sierras,    near   one   branch   of 
the   Yuba    River. 

Then  there  is  a   similar  range   station  greater   than  four 
thousand  acres,    the  Hopland  Station.       It's  located   in   the    Coast 
Range   near  Hopland.      That  was  established  to  study    sheep   grazing 
and  all   the   problems  associated  with   sheep  raising.      It   also  was 


190 


Kendrick:      a   source   of  wildland  studies,   and  much  information  was    developed 
on  that   station  about    deer  herds,    dealing  with   deer   and  their 
native  environment  and  how   to  keep  the   size   of    the  herds  within 
reason. 

Lage:  Did  they   do  any   mountain  lion  studies  there? 

Kendrick:      I   think   they  may  have.      They   did  a   pretty   complete   coyote    study, 
researching  the  control   of   coyotes  in  the  process  of   raising 
sheep. 

There   are    three  field  stations  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley, 
one   called   the  Kearney  Horticultural    Field  Station,   which  is  our 
major   field  station  in  the  system   of   nine.      Kearney    is   near 
Reedley,   and  Reedley   is   close  to   Parlier,   which  is   the   post 
office   address   for    the  Kearney   Field  Station.       It's  about   twenty 
miles   south  and  a  little  east   of    Fresno. 

Then  there  is   the  West   Side   Field  Station,    which   is  located 
at   Five   Points.       It  is   not   close  to  anything.       It   is   southwest    of 
Fresno  about   forty   miles,    and  is  out  in  that  West  Side 
agricultural  development  which  was   developed  with   the   completion 
of    the  California  water   aqueduct.      It   is   devoted  largely   to   the 
field  crops  and   cotton,   which  are   characteristic   of    the 
agriculture   in  that  region.      The  Kearney   Horticultural    Field 
Station,    as  the  name  implies,    deals  with  fruits,    nuts,   vines,    as 
well   as   some   of    the  vegetable   crops,    and  other  crops  that  are 
characteristic  of   the  east   side   of    the  San  Joaquin  Valley. 

And  the  Lindcove  Field  Station  is  a  little   northeast   of 
Visalia,    and  a  little   southeast   of   Kearney.       It's  within   twenty- 
five   or   thirty    miles  of    the  Kearney   station,    but   it  is  just   at 
the   beginning  of    the   Sierra  foothill   area.       It's   in   the   area 
where   citrus  was   developed  as  it  moved  out   of   southern  California 
into   the   San  Joaquin  Valley.      Its   primary   activity   is    devoted  to 
citrus  research. 

If 

We  have  also  a   station  in  the  middle  of   the  metropolitan 
area  of  Santa  Clara,    which  at  one    time  was   a  very   intense 
agricultural    region.       It's   not  a  large   station,    but   it  is  totally 
surrounded  by   urban  area.      It   originally  was    devoted  to   deciduous 
fruits,    and  it   is   called   the  Deciduous   Fruit   Field  Station.      The 
deciduous  fruits — plums,    prunes,    and  apricots,    were   once 
prominent    in  that   region's  agriculture,    and  so  were   strawberries. 
But  work  at  that  station  now  is   predominantly   related  to 
ornamental    and  urban  agriculture. 


191 


Kendrick:      Then  we  have  a  field   station  in  Orange   County,    which  is  fast 

becoming  surrounded  by   urban  development.      But   it  was  once   Irvine 
Company   property  adjacent   to   the  El  Toro   Marine   Corps  Air  Base. 
It  was  established  to  provide   some  breathing  room   for  some  of   the 
horticultural  work  that  was   being  conducted  at  UCLA  when  UCLA 
phased  out    its  agricultural   program.      One   of    my   predecessors,    Dan 
Aldrich,    was   given  the  unhappy  assignment  of   closing  down  all    of 
agriculture   at  UCLA  and   relocating  it  at  Davis  and  Riverside. 
One   person  went   back  to  Berkeley. 

Lage:  So   there  was   a   precedent   to  the  threat   to  close  it  down  at 

Berkeley. 

Kendrick:      Yes.       That's   not   my    story — I   didn't  have   to  inherit   that.       I  was 
involved  in  the  results  of    that   because  at   the   time   I  was 
chairman  of    the  Department   of   Plant  Pathology  at  Riverside   and 
UCLA,    and  we  had  four   people  at  UCLA  in  our   department.      The 
department  was,    however,    always  managed  from  Riverside.      Our 
teaching  unit  was  located  at  UCLA,   where   the   students  were.      And 
in  the   course   of    the  period  when  I  was   chair,    I  had  to  help 
negotiate  what  we  were  going  to  do  with  the   positions  and   the 
people  at  UCLA.      In  plant   pathology,    two   of    the  people  who  were 
at  UCLA  moved  to  Riverside  and  became  resident  members   of   our 
department.      A  third  member  retired  from    the  position. 

The  fourth  member  of   that   department   did  not  want  to   come   to 
Riverside,    and  we  ultimately  negotiated  a   spot  for  him  in 
Berkeley.      That  was  all   taking  place  when   I  was   chair   of    the 
department. 

The  same   thing  happened  to  entomology.      They   had  some  people 
move  to  Riverside  into  the  entomology   department.      There  were 
also   three   or  four   people   engaged  in  ornamental   horticulture  at 
UCLA,    all   of  whom  were  relocated  in  the  ornamental  horticulture 
program    at  Davis.      So  eventually   the  program  was  phased  down, 
although  not   completely  while   I  was  the   chairman  of    the 
department  at  Riverside,    because   as  a  vice   president,    I   recall 
there  were  a  few   people   still  at  UCLA,    an  associate    director   of 
the  experiment   station  at  UCLA,    Sid  Cameron,    who  became  a  part   of 
my  Agricultural  Advisory   Council,    or  Administrative   Council.      He 
was   succeeded  in  that  role  by  Van  Stoutemeyer,    a  horticultural ist. 
So  there  were  at  least  three  or  four   people  who  were  sufficiently 
advanced  in  their  careers   that  moving  them  just  made  no  human  sense. 

Lage:  Sounds  like  it's  hard  to  operate  without  a   department  to   back  you 

up. 

Kendrick:      Well,    there  was  a  little  bit  of   the  teaching  program   remaining  so 
they  moved  into   botany  and   conducted   the   program.      There  were,    I 
think,    three  or  four   people  left  at  UCLA  to  finish   out   their 
careers. 


192 


Kendrick:      I   guess  you  could  say   that   the  negotiation  of   the   phaseout   of 
agriculture  at  UCLA  started  under  Aldrich,    proceeded  under 
Peterson,    and   the  final    dot  at   the  end   of    the    paragraph  wasn't 
completed  until   I  had  a   little  bit   to  do  with   it.      I   recall   that 
the  negotiations  on  where   some   of    the  supporting  resources  and 
the  vacated  positions  were  going  to  go  were  conducted  by   Mack 
Dugger,    the   dean  and  associate    director   of    the   experiment    station 
at  Riverside,    and  David  Saxon.      David  at   the   time  was   the 
executive  vice   chancellor  at  UCLA,    so  we  had  an  early 
relationship  with  David  before  he  became   president. 

Lage:  So   did  we  name  all    the  field  stations? 

Kendrick:     No.    we've  got  one  more  to  go.      I   digressed  a   little  bit   because 
that  Orange   Coast   Field  Station,   as    I  indicated,    was   selected   so 
that  it   could  serve   the  faculty   of   the  experiment   station  from 
Riverside  as  well  as  UCLA,   an  easy   run  by    the  automobile  from 
both   places.      But   it   ultimately  became  a  place  where  activity    in 
citrus  and  avocado  research  were   predominant,    with   a  little   bit 
of    ornamental    horticulture  and  turf   research  also  conducted 
there.      We  had  an  important   strawberry  breeding   program   also  at 
that   station. 

Lage:  Has   that  been  taken  over  by   urbanization  also? 

Kendrick:      Well,    it's   been  quite  a  while    since    I've    been   to    that    station. 
I'm   told   that   there's   a   lot   of   urban  encroachment.      The  Irvine 
Company  is  in  the  land  development  business  as  well  as 
agriculture,    but   I   think  their  agricultural    activity    is   minimal. 

The  last — the   ninth — field  station  is   in   Imperial    County. 
It's    called   the   Meloland   Field  Station,     in  the   Imperial  Valley. 
The  proper   name  is   the   Imperial  Valley   Field   Station.      There's    a 
little   railroad   siding   there,     and   I    think  it's   called  Meloland. 
It   is  about  five  miles   east   of   El    Centre.      It,    as  one  would 
expect,    is   devoted  to  the  kind  of   crops  that  are  characteristic 
of    the    Imperial  Valley.      The   Imperial  Valley   is  an  interior 
desert  valley   that  has   been  developed  because   of  water  available 
through  the  Colorado  River  Compact.      There  is  an  aqueduct   that 
comes  from    the  Colorado  River  and  irrigates   the  Imperial  Valley. 
It   also  is   the   source   of   most   of    the  water  for   the  Salton  Sea. 

Well,     that's  quite  an  extensive   system   of   field  stations, 
but  it   certainly   is  not   overwhelming.      It's  not  as  large  as   some 
of    the  other   states   that  have  field  stations.      The  main 
difference  is   that  our  University   field   stations    do  not    conduct 
programs   on  their  own.      They   are  managed  as  facilities  for   the 
regular  experiment   station  personnel  located  on   the    campuses,    and 
for   the  extension  personnel — both   specialists  and  farm  advisors — 
to   conduct  their  field  research  work  on.      We  had   a  few 
permanently   located  research  people  and  some  extension  people 


193 


Kendrick:      located  at    Imperial   and  at  Kearney.      But  for   the  most    part,    the 
staff  located  at   the  field  stations  were  support   staff  and  a 
mixture   of  field  station  personnel  as  well  as  some    department- 
assigned   supporting   staff. 

Field  stations  in  other   states   conduct   independent   research 
and  extension  programs  on  their  own.      I  like  it   the  way  we  manage 
it   because    it  meant  we  didn't  have  a  lot   of    independent   programs. 
Our  field  research  program  was  under  the  management   of  our 
regular   faculty    and   staff. 

We   got   off   on  this   topic   because   the  field  station  system   is 
one   of   the  allocations   of    the  20   percent   of    the   budget  remaining 
after   the  80   percent   nonflexible  funding  that  is   part  of    the 
experiment    station  appropriation. 

Lage :  So  field  stations  were  another   sort   of   fixed  cost. 

Kendrick:      They   certainly  were.       It's   a  fixed   cost  in  the    sense   that   to 
achieve  any   flexibility    meant   closing  down  a  facility  or 
discharging   people.       It  is  not  a   source    of   funds    that's    available 
for   annual    reallocation,     as   grant   funds   usually   are. 


The   Statewide   Critical  Applied  Research    [SCAR]    Fund 


Kendrick:      There  were  about  a  million  dollars  worth   of    these   special   funds 
composed  of    several    special    funds   such   as  the  previously 
mentioned  pear  decline  funds.      Ultimately  we   solved   the   pear 
decline   problem,    and  so  the  question  was,    what  do  you  do  with 
those  funds? 


Lage:  Did  the  appropriation  end,    or — ? 

Kendrick:      No,    it  was  fixed  into   the   budget.      All    those   special 

appropriations  were  part  of  the  general  budget.  They  were 
indexed  to  inflation  so,  in  due  course,  they  had  increased 
accordingly. 

Lage:  Once    the  problem's  been  solved,    isn't   there   some  way   to  say — ? 

Kendrick:      Well,    what  I   did  was   say,    "I   think  it's  foolish  to  identify   these 
funds  as   pear  decline   funds."     What  we   should  do   is   identify   them 
as   pear  research  funds.      As  long  as    there's   a    problem   in   pears, 
it   will   get  first   call   on  those   funds,    and  if   there's  no   critical 
need  for   pear  research,    why,    as  far  as    I'm   concerned,    it's   fair 
game  for   allocation  to  other  kinds   of   general   problems.      I  would 
try  to   keep  it   somewhat  related,    but   I  wasn't   concerned   that   it 
necessarily   go    back  to   pear  decline. 


194 


Kendrick:      The  pear  decline  funds  had  lost   their  identity  with  anyone   other 
than  those   preparing  the  budget,    and  the  proponents  of    the 
special  appropriations  in  the  legislature  had  long   since  moved 
on.      So   there  was   really  no  watchdog  for   them.      And  since   we  had 
a  number   of   these  earmarked  original  appropriations,    what  we    did 
was  ultimately  combine   them   into  what  was  called  the  Statewide 
Critical  Applied  Research  Fund    [SCAR   Fund],    which  was  a   grant 
fund  amounting  to  about   a  million  dollars.      This  was  helpful 
because  it  meant  we  had  some   degree   of   flexibility   to  allocate   on 
short  notice   to  activities  that  were  directed  towards  a  crisis. 
We  tried  to  keep  the  funds   strictly  within  the   definition  of 
critical   applied  research   to  contrast   it  with  the  long-term  basic 
research  activities   that  were   by  and  large  funded   through   grants 
made   by   the  National    Science   Foundation,    National    Institutes   of 
Health,    and  other  federal   agencies. 

We  had  more  money   coming  into  our   program   from   those  kinds 
of    sources,   federal   sources,   which  were   the  result    of    the 
individual    faculty    members'    own  entrepreneurship  and 
gr ant sman ship,    than  we  had  from   the  USDA  formula  funds.      As   a 
matter  of   fact,    we  had  twice  as  much  coming  from   other  federal 
agencies  as  we  had  from    the  Hatch  funds.      We   never  felt   that   the 
Hatch   funds  were   that   significant  in  determining  our   program, 
which  was  another  reason  that   I  resented   the  accusations   from   the 
suit   of    the  California  Rural   Legal   Assistance    that  implied  that 
because  our  program  was  unduly   influenced   by   agribusiness  and 
private   industry,    we  were  misusing  Hatch  funds.      There  was  no  way 
to  trace  exactly  how  Hatch  funds  were   being  used   because   they 
were  co-mingled  with  other  programs  and  with  other  funding. 

Lage:  Hatch  funds  were  just   sort  of  a   general  appropriation? 

Kendrick:      Hatch   funds   arrived  at   the  University    on  a   formula  basis.      And 
the  formula  was   derived  by   a  ratio   of   rural   population  to   urban 
population  and  numbers  of    farming  units.      California  suffered 
from   that  ratio,    that  index,    because   the  numbers   of   farming  units 
in  California  were  not  as   great  as   in  many   southern  states,    and 
the  rural   population — 

Lage:  If  there  were  smaller  farms,    California  would  have  gotten  more 

money? 

Kendrick:      The  rural    population  in  relation  to  urban  population   [laughs]    was 
also  not   something   that   favored   California's    distribution   of 
Hatch  money.      So   our   share  of   Hatch   allocations  was  really   not 
very  large  in  relation  to   the  value   of   our  agriculture.      A  number 
of   us  always   thought   that  we   ought   to  place  in  that  index  the 
value   of    the   product,    but  we   didn't    get   beyond   the   talking   stages 
in   that.       It's   not   easy    to  reallocate  a  funding  source    that  has 
become   no   standard  and  so   traditional    that  it  has  really   become 
part   of   your   base   budget.      So  you  don't   take   money   away    from 


195 


Kendrick: 


Lage: 


Kendrick: 


Lage: 
Kendrick: 


Kentucky   or  Tennessee   or  North  Carolina   or   Florida  and  reallocate 
it   to  California,    which   already   has   got   one   of    the  largest 
agricultural   budgets   of  any   of    the  land   grant  institutions  in  the 
states.      We   stand  out   like   a   sore  thumb  among  all  states,    but  we 
stand  out   because  the   state   of   California  has   always   taken  more 
than  a   modest   interest   in  supporting  agriculture,    and  they   have 
appropriated  accordingly. 

Now,    where  were  we? 


We've   shown  how   there  was  not   a  lot   of   flexibility  in  the 
program.      This   is  one   of    the   themes  you  wanted  to  discuss,    how 
introduce   flexibility   into   the   program. 


to 


Yes.      And  this   is  one   of    the  techniques,    combining  some   of    these 
specialized  funds.      Another   source   of   those   specialized  funds  was 
the  ag  mechanization  funding.      It   became  a  part  of    the   total 
Statewide   Critical  Applied  Research   Fund. 

There  was   one   enlightened  appropriation  early  on  in  my 
tenure  supported  by  Vice   President  Oswald  in  spite   of   the 
terrible   environment   that   I  was  experiencing.      It  was  a 
designated  appropriation  requested   through   the  regular   budgetary 
process.      It  was   not   difficult   to  convince    the  State  Department 
of   Finance  representatives  and  the  Assembly's  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  representatives,    after   they  understood  the  fixed  nature 
of   the  total  appropriation,    that  we   could  improve  our  ability   to 
respond  quickly,    if   there  was   some  undesignated  funding.      So  a 
modest   amount   of   funding  at  our  request,    something  like   $250,000, 
was  appropriated,    and  it   ended  up  in  this   unrestricted  funding 
source.       I  had  help  from   the   President's   budget    office;    Loren 
Furtado  was   instrumental    in   shaping  the  budget  in  those  years. 
He  saw  the  need  and  was  somewhat   sympathetic  and  helped  shape   the 
request    and  justification. 

He  was   a  University   employee? 

He  was  from    the  University   budget  office.      Vice   President  Oswald 
and  Loren  Furtado  were  also  helpful   in  my   securing   $100,000   of 
Regents'    controlled  funds   to  support  agricultural    research  which 
was  focused  on  innovation  and  change  in   direction.     While   these 
funds   did  not  fit   precisely   our   SCAR  Fund  purpose,    they   were 
welcome  additions  to  our  flexible  funding  sources.      We   continued 
to   identify    them    as   "Regents'    Funds."     The   amount    of   allocatable 
funds  available  on  an  annual   basis  really  was  very   modest, 
however,    in  relation  to  the   size   of    the  research   effort   of    the 
experiment   station. 


196 


Working  with   the  State   Department   of   Finance 


Lage:  And  how  about  the   staff   of   these  legislative   committees   that  you 

mentioned?      Did  you  work  well  with   them? 

Kendrick:      We  worked  with  the  Department   of   Finance,    initially,    in  putting 
the  budget   together.       That's   the  most   critical    stage   of 
budgeting,    as  far  as   the   state   portion  of  our   total   operating 
budget  was   concerned.      The  summer   and  fall  of   the  year  is  when 
the   President's  Office   budget   office   group  works   almost    daily 
with   the  Department   of    Finance,    going  through   the  budget  item  by 
item,   justifying   the  allocations   that   the  University   is 
requesting,    and  providing  arguments  in  support  of   what  we   think 
we   need  to  run  the  institution.       It's   so   critical   to   get   items 
included  in   the   governor's  budget,    because   if    it   does   not   appear 
in   the    governor's    budget,    it   is   unlikely   to   be   funded. 

Lage:  So  your   first  job  is  with   the  governor's   people. 

Kendrick:      The  first  job  is  with   the  Department   of   Finance,    to   get  into   the 
budget  proposal    the  things   that  are  needed  because   they,    of 
course,   are   charged  with   the  responsibility   of   putting   the 
governor's   budget   together.      That   doesn't   mean   that    the   governor 
doesn't  have  a  mind  of  his  own  and  couldn't  ask  for    things   or  ask 
that   things   be   eliminated.      But   it  is   really   the  Department    of 
Finance   that   is   critical    in   putting   this   together. 

Lage:  Would  this  be  a  time  where  you  could  perhaps  compare  the 

different   governors'   departments   of   finance  and  how    they  were   to 
work  with? 

Kendrick:     Well,    I  can,    yes.      Let  me  finish   the  story   of  budgeting  because   I 
don't   know   if   it's   in  Harry  Wellman's   oral   history,    or   if   it  will 
be    in  dark  Kerr's  autobiography.      The  manner   in  which   the 
budgeting  process  is   carried  forth  is   unique   to   California,    and 
it's   due    to  the  fact    that   there's  a  line-item  veto  available   to 
the  governor. 

Lage:  So   if   something  is  added  by   the  legislature   that  wasn't   in  the 

governor's   budget,    it's  likely  to   be  vetoed. 

Kendrick:      That's    precisely   the   case.      And   that's  why    it's    so    critical    to 
have   desired  items   included  in   the   budget  as   presented  to   the 
legislature   by    the   governor.       The   legislature  doesn't  have   to 
appropriate   everything   that   the   governor  asks  for.      Often   they 
don't.       That   most   often  results  in  us  not   getting  that   item 
because  the   governor,    while   permitted  to  veto,    is  not    permitted 
to  add  items   back  that   the  legislature  has  eliminated.      So   the 
process   after   the   '  udget   is   put   before    the  legislature  is   all 
downhill. 


197 


Lage:  I   see.      It's  a   defensive  action. 

Kendrick:      It's   a   defensive  action.       If   the  legislature  wants   special    items 
funded   that   they   think  are  important  and   the   governor    didn't   put 
in  the  budget,    unless  he   (or   she,    as  the  case   may   someday   be) 
feels   that   it's   important,    or  is  an  oversight,     or    they're   able   to 
convince   him  otherwise,    it  will  wind  up  on  the  cutting  room   floor 
and  be  vetoed  as   breaking  his   or  her   stated    goal   for    the   budget. 
And   if    the  legislature   doesn't   like    some   of    the  governor's   pet 
ideas,    or   some   of    the   things   that  are   put  into  it   by   the 
Department   of   Finance,    they   can  refuse   to  appropriate  money   for 
them,    and   so  we    don't   get   those  items   either.      So  it's  a  no-win 
situation — once    the   budget   is   in  the  hands   of   legislature,    it's 
fight  for  what  you've   got.      And  that   characterizes   a  lot    of   our 
testimony   before   the  legislature  in  support  of  budgets.      We  wind 
up  for   the  most   part   supporting   the   governor's   budget,    regardless 
of    party    and  relationships  with   the  budget. 


i 


198 


XI      THE  AGRICULTURAL    DIVISION  AND  GOVERNORS   REAGAN.    BROWN. 
AND   DEUKMEJIAN 


Relationships  with   the  Reagan  Administration 
Reagan  Advisors  Earl    Coke   and  Allan  Grant 

Kendrick:      During  the  Reagan  administration,   our  relationship  in  agriculture 
was   pretty   good,    better   than  the  rest   of    the  University.      Part   cf 
that,   and  maybe  even  a  major  share   of   that,    in   my  opinion,    was 
due    to   the  fact   that  Governor  Reagan's  agricultural    advice   came 
primarily  from   two   sources:      Earl   Coke  and  Allan  Grant.      Earl 
Coke   was  formerly  director   of  Agricultural   Extension  for  the 
University,    in  the   period   between  B.    H.    Crocheron  and  George 
Alcorn.      So  he  was   the   second  director   of    the  Agricultural 
Extension  Service. 

ff 

Earl    was   quite   revered   by   California's  agriculture, 
organized  and  otherwise,   and   also   knowledgeable  about   the 
University,    as  a   former   employee.      He   started  out   as  an  ag 
extension  specialist  in  agronomy.      He  was,   at   the    time   that   I 
moved  in  to  my   spot,    secretary    for   California's  Agriculture  and 
Services  Agency,    and  his    director   of  agriculture,    in   Calif  orria's 
Department   of   Agriculture,    was  Richard  Lyng,    Dick  Lyng,    who  is 
the   present  United  States   secretary    of   agriculture. 

Allan  Grant  was  not   only  president   of   the  California  Farm 
Bureau   Federation,   but  he  was   president   of   the  State  Board   of 
Food  and  Agriculture,    then  known  as   the  State  Board  of 
Agriculture.      Later  it   changed  its   name  when   the    department 
became   the  Department   of   Food  and  Agriculture.      He  was  also,    as 
president   of    the  State  Board   of  Agriculture,    an  ex   officio 
Regent.      So   the  governor   had,    as  far  as  he  was   concerned,    two 
very   strong  advocates  for  agr-'.culture  as  his    close    personal 
advisors. 


With  Harry  Wellman,  at  luncheon  for 
formal  presentation  of  Wellman 's 
oral  history,  January  1977. 


Evelyn  and  Jim  Kendrick, 
October  1981. 


The  California  State  Board  of  Agriculture,  at  last  meeting  with  Governor 
Ronald  Reagan,  December,  1975.   Left  to  Right:  Jim  Kendrick,  Al  Tisch, 
Allan  Grant,  Governor  Reagan,  Wes  Sawyer,  Herb  Fleming,  Director  Bru 
Christensen,  Emil  Mrak,  Cordner  Gibson. 


199 


Interpreting   the  University's   Mission  to   the  Ag   Staff   and 
Communi  ty 


Lage :  Allan  Grant.    I  noticed  in  the  editorials   in  California  Farmer. 

seemed  exceedingly  upset  with  the  University   in   the   period   of 
'68.     '69. 

Kendrick:      Yes.      The   sources  of   his   unhappiness  with   the  University   were   the 
same   sources   that    caused   the   unhappiness   that   the   governor 
exhibited.      These  were  the  perceived  seeming  lack  of    resolve   to 
punish  and  admonish   the    confrontations,    the   strikes,    the   sit- 
downs,    and  rowdy  behavior,    in  their  view,    by  students  who  were 
opposed  to   the  U.S.    policy   in   the  Vietnam   engagement. 

Lage:  Did  he  carry   that  over   to  his  attitude   towards  your   division? 

Kendrick:      No.      I  had  mentioned  earlier  in  one   of  our   sessions   that   one   of 
the  attitudes   I   often  encountered  in  Cooperative  Extension  was  a 
feeling  that  they  were  not  a   part   of   the  University   of 
California,    particularly   those   people  who  were  located  in  offices 
in  regions   of   California  which  were   pretty   conservative.      They 
tended  to  look  at   the  University   of   California  as   them,   and  those 
of  tis  are   different,   and  we  aren't    sympathetic  towards   that   sort 
of    thing.      I   tried  to  remind  them   that,    rather   than  criticize   the 
University   of   California  in  its    generic   sense,    to  recognize  its 
comprehensiveness  and  explain  that   they   were  also  a  part  of   the 
University   of   California,   and  anyone  who  wanted  to   condemn  the 
University   of    California  in  its  totality   were  in  a  sense 
condemning  the  agricultural   extension   program   also.      I   thought 
that   they   ought   to  stand  up  and  be   counted,    indicating  that   the 
University  was  a   diverse   collection  of   ideas  and   people  like 
them.      The  noisy   ones  at  the  moment  were  being  somewhat  rude  and 
obstreperous.      That   the  University  was  a   collection  of 
differences;    it  wasn't  a   collection  of    monolithic  ideas. 

Lage:  Was   this  hard  to   get  across  to  your   own  staff? 

Kendrick:      Absolutely.      They    couldn't   see   it.      Particularly,    I   would   say, 

the   Cooperative  Extension   personnel   located  in  the   counties — not 
necessarily   those   that  were  located  on  campuses  because   they   were 
exposed  to  the   campus  environments — but   three-fifths   of    the 
Cooperative  Extension  people  were  in  county-based  offices.      And 
so  they  were  influenced  considerably  by  local   community  attitudes 
and  politics.       Mot   only   they,    but   their  clients  and  constituencies, 
would  frequently  ask  and  complain  about   the  fact   that   the  University 
didn't   appear   to   speak  or   advocate   the   same   position.       "You're 
inconsistent.      You've    got    critics   in   biological    control    that 
condemn  the  use   of   pesticides,    and  you've  got   those    that  believe 
that   pesticide   use  is   the   only  way  to   control    the    pests.      Why 
don't  you  make   up  your   mind,    so   that  we  understand  what's   going  on?" 


200 


Kendrick:      I  would   say   to   those   people.    "Don't   try   to  hold   us   to  a    single, 
uniformly   expressed  point   of   view.      The  University   has   no   point 
of  view.      It   is   a  home  for  intellectual   inquiry  and  expression, 
which   is  not   going  to  be   uniform   and  monolithic.      If  you've  got 
an  expert  on  one   side   of  an  issue,    I   can  find  another  expert   on 
the   other   side   of    the  issue,    and  we'll  have   a  lively   debate.      And 
you  can  make  up  your  mind  which  one  you  want   to   believe.      But 
don't  expect  us  to  do  so  for  you." 

Often  I  would  get  a  plea  from   some    particularly   irate 
citizen,    who   seemed  to  be   offended  by  a  particular  statement   or 
point   of  view,    saying,    "You  better   get  ahold   of    that   person  and 
stop   them    from    saying   this!"     And   I'd  say,    "Not   on  your   life.       I 
can't   stop  anybody  from   saying  anything.      I   can  expect   them    to 
justify   and  provide    the  basis  for  what   they   claim  to  believe,    and 
are  expressing,    but   I  won't  force   them  to    change    their   opinion. 
I'm   not    running   a    censorship   agency." 


Protection  for   Philosophical   Differences  in  the   Faculty    Promotion 
Process 


Lage:  Did  you  find  that  there  were  times  when  faculty   in  the  Experiment 

Station  who  may  have  expressed  unpopular  points   of  view 
regarding,    say,    mechanization,    or  large   farms  versus   small   farms, 
or  any   of   these   controversial   issues,   were  hindered  in  their 
advancement   at  the  University? 

Kendrick:      I  have  no  evidence   that  that  ever  took  place.      One   of    the  most 
vocal   critics   of    the   traditional    pest  control   systems  with  a 
heavy  emphasis  on  chemicals  was   the  late  Robert  Van   den  Bcsch,    a 
colleague   of    mine  at  Riverside  who  moved  to  Berkeley  and  was  a 
member  of   the  Department   of  Entomology  and  the  Division   of 
Biological   Control.      His   criticism   was   often  times   cynical, 
sarcastic,   and  somewhat   barbed.      He   became   a  very   popular   person 
to  quote  in  the  press.      His   descriptions  were  vivid  and 
appealing,    as   far  as   the   public  media  were    concerned.      But   I'm 
not  aware   that  Bob  ever  missed  an  advancement   or  a  promotion  for 
those  reasons.       I  vigorously   defended  his   right  to   express 
himself.      I   didn't  happen  to  agree  with  him,    but   he  was   certainly 
at  liberty  to  pursue  his  academic  rights  to   be  a   critic.      So  that 
we  had  a   good  relationship  even  though  we  differed  on  many    issues 
that  he  found   time   to    criticize. 

There  were  others.      I   think  the  Biological   Control    group 
felt  that  they  were  under   siege  a   good   part   of    the   time,    and  we 
tried  to  organize  them   a  little  closer  into  the  Department  of 
Entomology  here  at  Berkeley.      This   precipitated  a  world-wide 
letter-writing  campaign  suggesting  that  we  were  doing  away  with 
Biological   Control  because  we   didn't  like   their   criticisms  and  we 


201 


Kendrick:      didn't   agree  with   their   programs,    which  was  not   the   case  at   all. 
We  were  just   trying  to  tighten  up  the  management  a  little  bit  and 
get  them  to  become  more  a  part   of   the   physical  environment   of    the 
Department   of   Entomology. 

We've  kind  of   digressed  here,    but   this  was  another   one   of 
those  battles  that  took  place   during  my  regime  when  we  were 
trying  to  reorganize   the  way   things  were  being  handled  here  at 
Berkeley.      Riverside  was  on  the  fringe   of   that  argument   because 
the  biological   control   people  are  entomologists,    fundamentally. 
But  they   differ  about  180  degrees  with   some   of   their 
entomological   colleagues.      They   believe   philosophically   that 
entomologists  who  advocate  pesticide   control   of   insects   are 
contaminating  the  environment,    so  the  biological   control 
specialists   pursue  a   different   tactic  in   controlling  insects  and 
weeds.      And  that  is   promoting  biological   warfare  in  a   sense,   by 
pitting  one    biological   entity   against   another. 

So   that  philosophical    difference  was   the  source   of   a  schism 
between  the   two   groups   that   still   exists  today.      They're   not 
airily  brought   together  in  the   collegia!   environment.      The  people 
in  the  Division  of  Biological   Control   feel    that   if    they  were 
totally  amalgamated  and  submerged  into  the  Department  of 
Entomology,    which  at  both  Riverside  and  Davis  are  large 
departments,    they   would  lose   the  force   of   their  ability   to 
express   themselves  in  the  manner   that   they   do  now.      It's  really  a 
case   of   preserving  the  right,    at  least   the  opportunity,    to  exist 
somewhat   separately.      They  felt  that  a   structure   of   separatism 
was  exceedingly   important   to  them,    in  being  able  to  express  this 
different   philosophy. 

Lage:  Did  they   win  that  battle,    or  were   they — ? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      They   still   are   separate. 
Lage:  It's  a   separate   department,    or — ? 

Kendrick:      A   division.       It's  a  subunit   of    the  Department   of  Entomology   at 
both   Riverside   and  Berkeley.      I   continue    to  believe   that   they 
would  be  better   off  being  a  little  more  a   part    of    the  entomology 
department.      But    I  believe   that   they   should  be   allowed  to 
preserve  themselves  as  a  subunit  and  express   their   philosophical 
points  of  view   just  as   strongly  as  the  economic  entomologists, 
who  essentially   are  identified  as   the    pesticide    group. 

The  urge    to  kill   things  with   chemicals  has   passed.      I   think 
we've   gotten  through   that   era   of    pest    control.      And  we're   into 
the  much   more  enlightened  era  of   developing  strategies  to  control 
diseases  and   pests.      But   the   transition  has  left   a  lot   of   raw 
edges. 


202 


Kendrick:      The  question  you  asked  about  whether   these    differences   of   opinion 
from    the  standard  opinions  were  detrimental   to  the  advancement   of 
those  who  expressed  them,   and   I  have   to   say    that    I  have   no 
evidence    that   they   were.      I   think  if   we  were  to  ask  some  of    the 
people  who  expressed   them,    they   might   suggest   otherwise.      So   I'm 
not   sure  that   the  evidence   is  very   clear  on  one   side   or   the  other 
because  advancement  and  promotion  are   based  upon   good  scientific 
work,    and  that  is   somewhat  of   a  subjective  analysis  by  your 
peers.      There  are  some  who  will   say,    "Well,    my   peers  were    down  on 
me   because    I've  been  criticising  them   all   along."     It  would  be 
hard  to   prove   or   disprove  either   case,    but   I   think   that  you  could 
also  find  critics   of    the  quality   or  quantity   of    the  work  being 
done. 

Lage :  In  the  promotion  process,    don't  they   go  outside   of   their 

immediate   department  and  maybe  outside   the   college  to   get 
opinions?      In  agricultural    economics,    for   instance,    would  they    go 
outside   of   the  immediate  Department   of  Agricultural  Economics  for 
peer  review? 

Kendrick:      Each   campus  handles  their  promotion  process  slightly  differently. 
but  there  are   certain  similar   elements   that    characterize   the 
University   of   California  as  a  whole.      When  you  are  moving  to 
tenure,    or  moving  from  an  associate   professorship  to   the 
professorship,    or  from    the  higher   ranks   of    the  professorship   into 
the  super   grades,    outside  testimony   is   sought.      The  outside 
testimony,    primarily,    is  from   people  in  other  institutions  or 
other  campuses,    who  are  familiar  enough  with  the  work  of   the 
candidate   that   they   can  interpret   the  quality   and  the  fundamental 
nature   of    the    contributions.      So   that   opinions   are   sought  from 
people  who  have  no  axes   to  grind.      They    may  not  even  know   the 
individual,    but  because   they  happen  to   be  working  in   the    same 
field,     they    may   know    the  candidate's  work. 

When  it  comes  to  putting  ad-hoc  review   committees  together, 
you  are  not   confined  to  members  of  your   own  department.      You  may 
have  no  more  than  one  representative  from  your   department,    or  you 
might  have   two.    on  a  five-person  committee.      And  they   even  go 
outside   the   colleges.      You're  at  liberty   to    cover    the    campus.       It 
is  likely   here  at  Berkeley   that  biologists  from   one  life  sciences 
area,    in  zoology  or  botany,    would  find  themselves  on   committees 
evaluating  plant   pathologists.       If   they   happened  to  be    plant 
physiologically   oriented,    or   biochemistry   oriented,    they   might 
find  people  from  biochemistry   serving  on  the  committee  of   someone 
who  is  engaged  in  the   biochemistry   of   reactions,    or  viruses,    or 
what-have-you.      And  then  when  you  get  to  the  budget  committee, 
that  next  level    that   is   placed   there  to  iron  out    differences   or 
biases,    you're  lucky   to  have   anybody    from   agriculture  on  that 
committee  on  the  Berkeley   campus.      There  have   been 
representatives  from    time   to  time,    but   it's  a   smal?.  personnel 


203 


Kendrick:      committee.      The    closest  you're  apt  to   get   is   someone  from 

biology,    or   someone  from   social   science  who  would  take   care  of 
the   economists.      So   the   system   is  established  to  eliminate   br'.as. 

Lage :  It    should  offer   some   protection,    although   I'm   sure   there  are 

subtle  ways   bias   can   be   expressed. 

Kendrick:      Well,    it's   the  way    letters  are  written,    initially.      The 

department   chair  plays  a  very   important   part  in  assembling  all 
that   information.      The  first  action  that   takes  place   relative   to 
an  advancement  is  a  vote   of   the   tenured  members   of    the  faculty   in 
all   cases.      In   some   cases,    they    include   more   than  just   tenured 
members   in  that    decision.      That's  a   campus  option;    it    depends  on 
how    broadly   they    consult.       If    it's   not  a  vote,    at  least   it's  an 
attempt  to  gain  some   consensus  of  whether   or  not   the   colleagues 
in  the  department  feel    that   the  candidate  is  qualified  for  the 
next    step.      If   all    the   colleagues   in  the   department  have  an 
opinion  different   from    the   chair,    the  chair  must  record  that 
difference,    and   then  that's    the   beginning   of   another    problem. 


Supportive  Oversight   during  Reagan  Governorship 


Lage:  So   that   took  us   off   our   original   topic,   but   I   think  that    I  wanted 

to  get   to  that  at   some   point.      We  were  talking  about   the 
differences   between  the    different    governors. 

Kendrick:      The  fact   that  Allan  Grant,    the  Regent,    and  Earl   Coke,    the 

secretary   in  the   cabinet,   were   both   strong  agriculture-oriented 
officials,    placed  the  agriculture  program    in  the  University    in 
the   unique   position  of  having  oversight   by  supporters.      They  were 
quick  to  act   and  to  comment  when  they   felt  that  the  budgetary 
process  was   being  disadvantaged  as  far  as  agriculture  was 
concerned. 

So   I   kind   of   "tiptoed  through   the   tulips"  in  this 
relationship.      I  was   pleased  to  have  it,   but   I  was   also   mindful 
of    the  fact   that  I  was  having  to  deal   with  that  special 
protection  that   I  inherited  when   the   budget   cut  was   allocated  to 
the  University    in  1967   and  agriculture  was   protected  to  the 
extent   of    that   three   percent   cut   overall.      After  Governor 
Reagan's  initial   unhappiness  with   the  institution  toward  its 
seemingly  mishandling  or  not  handling  protests,    our  budget  for 
the  total   University   was   really   treated  very   well.      Governor 
Reagan  ceased  to  have  much   direct  involvement  in  University 
affairs.       That   didn't   mean  that   some   of   his  appointees   didn't 
exercise   considerable  influence,   including  Alex  Sheriffs,   who  was 
his    educational    advisor. 


204 


Kendrick:      At   one  point  Verne  Orr  was   the   director   of   finance;    he  was   a 

pretty   tight-fisted   director   of   finance.      Cap  Weinberger  was   the 
director   of   finance  at   one   point.      That's  where  he    got   his 
reputation  of   Cap  the  Knife,    because  he  was  not  very    generous. 
You  really  had  to  fight  for  what  you  thought  you  needed  during 
those  years  when  Charlie  Hitch  was   president. 


Confrontational  Regents'    Meetings,   with  Campus  Administrators 
on  the  Defensive 


Kendrick:      There  was  always  a  lot  of    tension  on  the  Board  of   Regents  between 
the  Reagan  appointees  and   those  who  had   been  appointed   by   the 
senior  Governor  Brown.      Very   different   points  of   view,    and  there 
was   still    the  residue   of   campus    confrontations,    teach-ins,   and 
sit-ins,    and  one   thing  or  another.      It  was   during  those    periods 
that   People's   Park  took  place — this  was  in  the   early    seventies — 
and  we  also  had  the  National  Guard  in  the  streets   some  of   this 
time.      Regents'   meetings   became  a   target   of    protest,    as   far  as 
students  and  eager  faculty   were  concerned. 

We  had  a   particularly   frightening  Regents'   meeting  very 
early    in  my    vice    presidency    in  '68  or  '69 — probably   the  fall   of 
•68 — at  UCLA,    in  which   the   students  surrounded   the  University 
dub  where  the  meeting  was   being  held.      They   broke   in,    or   tried 
to  break  in,    storming  the   place  with  rocks  and   breaking  large 
glass  windows.      It  was  a  hair-raising  experience,   bordering  on  a 
riot.      The  Regents  had  a  little  trouble   getting  out   of    the 
meeting  when  it  was  over. 

That  meeting  was  followed  soon  by  another  hair-raising 
Regents'   meeting  on  the  Santa   Cruz    campus,   in  which  another 
student-led  protest   resulted  in  their  infiltration  of   the  meeting 
room  where   shouting  and   confrontational   tactics   took  place. 
There  was  a  lot   of    anger   expressed  toward  the  governor  and  his 
representatives.      And  so  when  they  would  appear  at   Regents' 
meetings,    a  lot  of   that  anger  was  vented  in  this  confrontational 
setting.      That  really   caused   the  Regents  to   decide   that    they 
would  not   meet   on  campuses  any   more.      Up  until   that   time,    they 
had  been  moving  from   campus  to   campus  to  hold   their  meetings. 

So   for    the  remaining  period  of    President  Hitch's   presidency 
and  most   of    the    period   of    President   Saxon's,     the   Regents' 
meetings  were  held — one   north,    one  south — in  the  Extension 
Centers.      Ultimately,    the  Regents    got   so  fed  up  with   the 
Extension  Center  in  downtown  Los  Angeles,    which  was  nothing  more 
than  a  made-over   Safeway   store,     that   they   moved  to   the   L.A. 


205 


Kendrick:      Convention   Center.      That  was   a  little   bit  like  holding  it,    well, 
in  a   convention  center.      That  was  where  this  famous  meeting  on 
the  ag  mechanization  issue  was  held. 

But   then  Chancellor  Young  finally  persuaded  the  Regents  that 
they  could  have  a  well-controlled  meeting  at   the  West   Center, 
which  was   the  alumni  center  on  the  UCLA  campus.      And  every   time 
they  went   south  subsequently,   we  met  on  the  UCLA  campus — which 
was   not   devoid  of   confrontations,    but   there   seemed  to  be  a  little 
better   control    of    things,   and   the  volatility   of   the  issues  were 
less — were  more  localized.      Vietnam  and  Free  Speech  were  issues 
of    the   past.      But  Regents'   meetings   are   still    focal    points   for 
protest. 

Well,    Governor  Reagan  and  his  appointed  Regents,    after 
causing  the  dismissal   of   Clark  Kerr,    expressed  a   certain  amount 
of   unhappiness  with  what  he  thought  was  mishandling  of   student 
unrest   by   Chancellor    [Roger]    Heyns.      Roger  was   a  master 
chancellor,    but   nearly  every    meeting  he  had  to  explain  something 
that  had  happened   the   previous  month — 

Lage:  Did  he  handle   the  explanations  well? 

Kendrick:      He  was  a  master  at   that.      Roger  was   one   of   my  favorite   people.* 
And  he  just  wore  out,    having  to  endure   that  kind  of    inquisition, 
it    seemed   to  me.      The   topic   of    controversy   could  be   a 
publication,    an  obscene   publication,    and  he  had  to  explain  why 
that  was  a  freedom   that  was  allowed.      Almost  any   subject   that 
some  Regent   took  issue  with,    he  would  be   called  to  the  table  to 
explain  what  he  was   going  to   do  about  it,    or  what  he  had  done 
about    it,     or   why   he  didn't   do    something  about   it. 

It  was  also  the   period  when   Chancellor   Chuck  Young  had 
agreed  that  Angela  Davis   could  be   hired  as  a   faculty   person,    and 
he  went  through  a  period  of   trying  to  explain  why   someone  who 
advocated  communist  rule  would  be  welcomed  to  the  University 
faculty.      It  was  also  the  period  when  Bill   McGill  was   chancellor 
at  San  Diego. 

f* 

He  had  a  faculty   member,    overage, 'whose  appointment  was 
coming  up  for  renewal,   and   that  faculty   person's   name  was 
Marcuse. 


*  See  Roger  W.    Heyns,    Berkeley   Chancellor,    1965-1971;      The 
University   in  a  Turbulent   Society,    Regional   Oral  History   Office, 
The  Bancroft  Library,    1987. 


206 


Lage:  Herbert   Marcuse. 

Kendrick:      And  our  Regents — I  don't  mean  all  of    them,    but    certainly  Allan 
Grant  represented   this   point   of  view   very    strongly — couldn't 
understand  why    the  University   could  possibly   expose   students  to 
that   point  of  view.      Marcuse  was  a   Marxist,    an  advocate   of    that 
political   system.      In  the  face   of    the  confrontations  and  the 
student  riots,    the   chancellors  at  UCLA  and  Berkeley  and  San   Diego 
seemed  to  condone   this  kind  of   nontraditional   and  nondemccratic 
thinking.      It  was  all   pretty  hard  for  the  Regents  to   swallow. 
And,    of   course,    Clark  Kerr  was   identified  with   opening  up   the 
campuses  to  the  appearances  of   Communists  and  with  free   speech. 

That  was  all  very    impressionable,    and  as  one  of   those  who 
was   part   of    the   President's   staff  and   trying  to  help   poor    Charlie 
keep  the  house   in  order,    it  was  no  time  for  me  to  make   special 
pleadings  for   special   considerations  for  agriculture.       [laughs] 

Lage:  Were  you  put   in  the  position  of    trying  to  defend  things,    say,    to 

Allan  Grant? 

Kendrick:      I   did  all   I  could  because   in  May   of   1968  I  became  a  member  of   the 
State  Board   of  Agriculture,    and   served  in  that   capacity   for  about 
sixteen  years.      So  I   had  more   than  a   casual    relationship  with 
Allan.      Over   the   course   of   our  relationship,   we   became   close 
friends,    and  I   think  he  was  a  strong  supporter  of  what  I  was 
trying  to   do.     And  it    gave  me  an  opportunity   to  try  and  help  him 
think  through  what  a  university    really   stood  for.      Well,    I   don't 
think  I  completely  sold  him  on  the  notion  that  we  were  not   going 
downhill   and  that  we  were  applying  sanctions  to  the  offenders. 
But  Roger  was  applying  as  many  sanctions  as  he   could   get  away 
with.      He  was  a   tougher  administrator  than  people  have  given  him 
credit  for. 

President  Hayakawa   of    San  Francisco  State  University   was 
getting  all   the   publicity   for  yanking  off    the  loudspeaker  when 
someone  was  advocating  some  position  of   protest.      That's   the  main 
thing  he  ever  did,    but  that  was  a   dramatic   event  with  lots   of 
media  coverage.      Roger  was   developing  all  kinds   of    rules, 
regulations,    policies,   and  sanctions,    and  making  them    stick.      So 
he   did  ten  times  what  Hayakawa   did  to  try   to  bring  order  back  to 
the   campus.     But  it  was  tough  for  the  Regents  to   see  because 
every   time  he  moved  one   step  ahead,    it  seems  like  he  got   pushed 
two   steps   backwards. 


207 


The  Jerry  Brown-David   Saxon  Era 


Warfare   between  the  Governor  and   the  Regents 


Kendrick:      Then  came  Jerry  Brown,    and  there  was  kind  of  a  sigh  of   relief 
because  we  expected  him   to   be   supportive.      Charlie  Hitch  felt 
that   eight  years  of   Reagan  was  about  all   he  could  stand  as  the 
chief  administrator  of  the  University   of   California,    and  he  was 
not  looking  forward  to  going  through  all  this  with  another 
governor.      At   the  end  of    Charlie's    presidency,     the  University    did 
not   have   good  relationships  in  Sacramento. 

Lage:  In  the  Brown  administration? 

Kendrick:      No.      At   the  end  of    the  Reagan  administration.      Even  though   the 
budgets   didn't   suffer   a  lot,    there  was  in  the   state   government 
still   a  lot   of    residual   suspicion  and  resentment,    I   think,    of    the 
University   of   California.      Particularly  in  the   legislature.      Bear 
in  mind    [Assemblyman]    John  Vasconcellos  as  a  constant  in  all  of 
this. 

Lage:  Yes,   but  he  would  have  been  a   particular  burr  in  the  side   of 

agriculture   programs,    or  was  it   of    the  entire  University? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      He  got  his  burr  in  the  agricultural    program   over  with 

early.      [laughter]      I  had  my   bruises,    but   I   think  we   got   to   the 
point  with  John  where  he  recognized  that  we  were  on  different 
wavelengths,    and  I   think  we  respected  our   differences.      I   didn't 
convince   him,    and  he  certainly   didn't   convince   me.      In  those 
early  years,    he   tended  to   be  vindictive,     I   thought.      That's    my 
judgment.      He  kind  of   had  it   in  for  us,    in  the   sense    that  he  felt 
that  agribusiness  had   profited  long  enough.      They    developed 
machines;    they   were  not  sensitive  to  environmental  quality  or   to 
the  farm  workers.      But  John's  fundamental   interest  is  educational 
quality,    and  he's   been  riding  that  hobbyhorse  ever   since.       So  as 
far  as   targeting  agriculture  for   criticism,    I   think   that's 
passed.       If    a   particular  abusive  action  happened  to  take   place, 
he  would  be  quick  to  restore  his  anger  and   concern,   but   I   think 
that's    not    likely    to   happen. 

Along  came  Jerry  Brown  as  governor,    and  somewhat  of   a  sigh 
of  relief  went   through   the  University.      They  felt   that  here  was 
one   of   our   alumni   as   governor,    a  person  of   clear  intellectual 
stature  who  was   capable   of   understanding  the  intricacies   of    the 
University.      We   thought  he  understood  what  a  university   was  all 
about.      We  felt  that  at  last  we  have  somebody  now  whom  we   can 
talk   with. 


208 


Kendrick:      We  were  quickly   disillusioned.      And   of   course,    the  Jerry  Brown 
era  was   the  Saxon  era. 

Lage :  So  Saxon  came   in  as   President   of    the  University    just  about   the 

same  time? 

Kendrick:     Just   about   the  same   time.      David   took  it   upon  himself  to  try   and 
repair  some  of   the  ill  feeling  that  existed   between  Sacramento 
and  the  University   and  tried  to  work  as  best  he  could  with  the 
governor.      What   started  us  on  this   interpretation  today  was   the 
budgetary   process.      We   got   down  to  a  pretty   standard  way  of 
putting   the   budget  together,   as  far  as   the  Reagan  administration 
was    concerned,    and  in  due   course   the  budget  really  didn't   suffer 
a  lot,    even  though  he  had   this  feeling  of   unhappiness  with   the 
way   we  were   doing  things.      But   after   those   early  years   of    cuts, 
Reagan's   unhappiness   didn't   come  out  in  any  harmful  way  as   far  as 
the  budget  was   concerned.      Faculty   salaries   suffered;    they    were 
not  very  sympathetic   there.      But  we   didn't   know   what  we  were  in 
for. 

Governor  Jerry  Brown  surprised  a   lot   of   us   because  he  then 
let  his  arrogance  and   cynicism    show.      The  first  adverse   session, 
and  one   that  was   crucial    as  far  as  I  was  concerned,    was  a  meeting 
that   the  Regents  held  in  the  Lawrence  Hall    of   Science.       It   wasn't 
a  very   good  environment   for   a  Regents'    meeting,    but   it  was  held 
up  there  on  the  hill.      It  was  a  meeting  at  which  Chet  McCorkle, 
who  was  then  the  senior  vice  president,    was  to  present  to  the 
Regents  the  result   of   a   two  or   three-year   effort   to   develop  a 
master   academic  plan  for   the  institution.      It   consisted  of   a 
collection  of   nine  to  twelve  individual   academic   plans  and  an 
overall   master   plan.      My   group  had  contributed  to  this,    by 
writing  an  overview   of  where  agriculture  was    going. 

The  entire  document  must  have  weighed  twenty-five  or   thirty 
pounds.      It  was  nine  to  twelve  documents,    and  when  they   stacked 
them  up  on  top  of   one  another   the  stack  was  at  least  a  foot  high 
or  higher.      Chet  had  them  with  him  at   the  Regents'   meeting,    and 
he  was  really  quite  proud  of    the  fact   that  they  had  finally 
worked  this  academic  plan  through  the   system.      There  was 
everything  in  it  from   A  to  Zilch   and  back  again.      The  governor 
took  the  microphone,    and  said  he  was   totally   unimpressed.      What 
the  University   was   trying  to  do  was  what  he  called  the  squid 
process,   and   the   squid   process,   he    said,    was   to  obscure    things 
with  ink.      [laughter] 

Lage:  That's  not  too  funny,    after  you've  developed  the  plan. 

Kendrick:      So  it  was  kind  of  a   personal   defeat  for  Chet,   and  a  bit   of  a   slap 
in  the  face   as  far  as  what  had  become  a  standard  format  for  doing 
business.      The  mistake,    if  any  mistake  was  made,    was   to   take  a 
big  document   that  was  a  foot  high  and  composed  of   nine   to  twelve 


209 


Kendrick:      sections,    and  plunk  them  down  on  the   table  at   the  meeting  of    the 
Board   of   Regents.      I   can  assure  you  nobody — nobody — just 
absolutely  nobody  is   going  to  read  that  much  material.      What  was 
really  needed  was  a  concise,    executive  summary,    with  an 
explanation  that  if  any  Regent  really  was   all    that  interested  in 
the  details,    we  would  make  arrangements  for  that  Regent  to  see 
the   detailed  document.      But  anyway,    that  wasn't    done. 

Well,    that  kind  of   summarized  the  warfare  that  the  governor 
had  with   the  Regents  and   the  University.      He  was  totally 
unsympathetic  with   the  Reagan-appointed  Regents.      He   interpreted 
Regents'   meetings  as  nothing  more   than  a   corporate   board   of 
directors'   business  meeting,    which   involved  talking  almost 
exclusively  about  financial  management  and  spent  scant   time   on 
intellectual   and  educational   policy   matters.      He   felt   that   the 
established  Regents  were  all  mechanistic  and  representatives   of 
big  business,    agribusiness,    and  traditional    institutional 
structures. 

Lage :  Did  he  express  all   this? 

Kendrick:      In  a  way,    he  would.      Not   the  way   I've   described  it.      He  was  very 
candid  and  blunt  in  his   criticism   of    the  Regents,    in  telling  them 
that   they   spent  far  too  much   time   on  the  appearance   of   buildings. 
What  did  that  matter?      The  fundamental   issue  that  a   board  such  as 
this  ought   to  be   talking  about  was  educational   philosophy.      And 
he   set  about  appointing  some  members  to  the  board  who  represented 
really  non- traditional   points  of   view,    so   that   the  character   of 
the  Board  of  Regents   changed  materially  with  appointees  not 
necessarily   sympathetic  towards  the  kinds  of   programs  that  I  was 
administering.      They   didn't   understand  them   necessarily,    but   they 
held  the  point   of   view    that  agriculture  had  been  favored  for 
seventy-five  or  a  hundred  years,    and  it  was  about   time  to 
reallocate   some  of    that  favoritism   to  other  bypassed  segments  of 
society. 

Jerry   Brown's   idea  of   a  good  Regents'    meeting  would  be   one 
that  would  spend  an  hour   discussing  educational   philosophy   or   the 
deficiencies   that  undergraduate  education  was  providing  its 
students.      His   criticism  wasn't   all  wrong,    but   the  manner  in 
which  he  addressed  them  was  not  complimentary   to  his  colleagues. 
He   didn't   give   them  much   credit  for   the  fact   that   they  were 
interested  in  managing  effectively  a  multibillion  dollar 
corporation.      While    [Regent]   Ed  [ward  W.]    Carter  was   always 
polite,    and  Jerry  Brown  was  always  polite  in  his  dealing  with  Ed 
Carter,    they   certainly   didn't   come  to  life  with   the    same   point   of 
view.      The  interesting  thing  is  that  Jerry  Brown  reappointed  Ed 
Carter   to  an  unexpired  term,    to  extend  his   tenure  on  the   board 
longer   than  almost  anybody   else  who  had  served.      So  he  was  not 
alienated  by  Ed   Carter,    but  he   certainly  was   by  Regents  Bill 


210 


Kendrick:      Wilson,    or  William   French  Smith,    or  Verne  Orr.    and  some   of    the 
other  Reagan  appointees.      He  was  always  on  the  opposite   side   of 
issues  with  Regents   Dean  Watkins  and  Glenn   Campbell. 

So   there  were  a  lot  of   opportunities  for  conf rontationism 
between  Jerry  Brown  and  the  Regents.      And  Jerry  wound  up 
attending  more  meetings   than  Reagan  did.      He  would  usually  bring 
an  agenda  item   that  he  was   interested  in   pursuing.       I'll   have    to 
review    some   of    the  names  of    the  Regents   that  he  appointed. 

Lage:  One  was  Gregory  Bateson. 

Kendrick:     Gregory  Bateson,    Margaret  Mead's  former   husband.      He  was  an 
appointee  by  Brown  who  almost   belied  rationality.      Gregory 
Bateson  would  take   off   on  a  discussion  of   something  that 
absolutely  nobody   in  the  room   could  understand.      He  would  launch 
on  a   discussion  for   fifteen  or   twenty    minutes,    and  there  wasn't 
anybody  who  would  have  a  rejoinder   or  anything  to   say   because  it 
was    so   abstract.       [laughs]      It   bore  no  relationship  to  reality. 
What  he  was  really  talking  about  was  some  sort   of   intellectual 
pursuit   that  was  associated  with  a  University   exercise,    or  could 
appropriately   be  incorporated  into  a  University  environment.      But 
it  certainly   was   beyond  most   of   the  board  to  grapple  with  because 
he  was  not  able   to   put  it  in  to  a   contemporary   situation. 

But   Jerry   Brown  could  engage   in  that  kind  of   discussion. 
The  more  we  dealt  with  him,    the  more  we   saw    that  his   concept  of 
what  Regents  ought   to  be  was  a   collection  of   people  capable  of 
engaging  in  seminars  and  philosophical    discussions   of    the  role    of 
the  University    in  contemporary   society.      During  both   of    his   terms 
as   governor,   he   continued  to  express   this   point   of  view,    although 
it   certainly  became   considerably   less  anti-business  as  he  became 
reconciled  to  the  fact  that  healthy   economic    growth  in   the   state 
of   California  was  vital    to  the  welfare  and  activities  of   the 
state,   and  so  he   became  a   bit  less    critical    of    that   kind   of 
representation  on  the  Board  of   Regents.      We  had  some  budget 
problems  with  him. 


Brown  and  the  Budget 


Lage:  Now,    how   did  that  attitude    get  translated  in  your   confrontations 

or  cooperation  with  the  Department  of   Finance? 

Kendrick:      Well,    the  Department   of   Finance,    as  far  as  Brown  was  concerned — 
I'm   trying  to   think  of  who  his   directors  were.      We   continued   to 
work  with  kind  of   the  traditional   civil   servants  who  come  along 
with  the  Department   of   Finance.      Roy  M.    Bell  was   Department   of 
Finance   director,    and  at  one   point,    Mary   Ann  Graves  was   director. 


211 


Kendrick:      Saxon's  relationship  with  Brown   ultimately   deteriorated.      David 
really    didn't   have   a   lot   of    tolerance   for   the  kind  of 
intellectualism   that  Brown  wanted  to  talk  about,   when  David  was 
really   suffering  because   faculty   salaries  were  not  being 
adequately  increased  and  money  to  run  the   place  was  tough  to   come 
by.      Renewing  the   contracts  to  manage   the  weapons  laboratories 
was    coming  up,   and  Brown  wasn't  very  helpful — wasn't  helpful   at 
all — in  trying  to  sustain  those   kinds   of   contracts.      There  were   a 
lot  of  bread-and-butter  issues  as  far  as   the  University  was 
concerned  that   the  Regents  had  to  contend  with,    but  Jerry   seemed 
to   be   saying,    "So  what?      The   place  will  handle  itself." 

While  he  was   correct   in  the  fact   that  the  Regents  needed  to 
be    concerned  about  educational   policy  and   the  quality   of 
undergraduate  education,    and  the  issues  of   admission  policies, 
and   demographic   changes,   and   affirmative  action,   he  ignored   the 
primary   need  of   providing  an  adequate  budget   to  support  all  of 
the  activities   of    the  University.      He   tended  to   dismiss,    we  felt 
too  easily,    the  kind  of   bread-and-butter  issues   that  had  some 
relationship  to   dollars  and   cents,    and  physical   facilities 
maintenance    and   construction. 

It  was   during  this   period  that  Jerry   conceived  of   the  nutty 
idea   of    giving   everybody  a   sixty   dollar   per  month   raise,    or 
something  like    that.      So  a   full   professor   got  a   sixty   dollar 
raise,    and  a   custodian   got  a   sixty   dollar  raise,    and   the 
percentage    there  upset   the  whole  salary   system,    particularly 
because  we  operate  the   salary  augmentation  system   on  the 
percentage   basis.      It   took  years  to  recover  from    that  kind  of 
action — but  his  explanation  was,   well,    the  lower-paid  people   need 
the  money    more   than  the  higher-paid  people,    and  sixty  dollars 
means   a  lot   to   them  and   doesn't  mean  a  lot  to  those   other    people. 
Sixty   dollars   sticks   in  my   memory   somewhere,    but   I  don't  know    if 
that  was  what  it  was  or  not.      But  it   characterized  his   cynicism 
about    the  University.      I   think  his  Jesuit   training  influenced  his 
spartanism.      In  his   commentary  about   salaries   of  administrators, 
he  was   totally  unsympathetic  towards  the  allocation  of   sufficient 
remunerative   salary  as  far  as   the  administration  was    concerned. 

He  would  not  recognize   that  you're  in  a   competitive   society 
with  managers,   with  external   private  enterprise  as  well  as   in 
other   higher   education  institutions.      You   can't  just   get  anybody 
to   be  a   president   or  a  vice   president,    you  have  to  have   people 
who  are  qualified  and  experienced  in  those   areas,    and  you  set 
your   salaries  on  the   basis   of  what   other   top  quality   institutions 
are   paying  for   positions  with   similar  kinds   of    responsibility. 
So  the   competition  was  not  necessarily  with  the  manager   of   a 
bridge   district   or   something,    it's  with  a  manager  with  comparable 
responsibility   in  a    comparable   institution. 


212 


Kendrick:      He  would  counter   that  argument   by   saying.    "Well,    there's   a 
certain  value    to  psychic  income,"  that  not   many   people  are 
favored  with  the  opportunity  to   serve  in  a   capacity    that  makes   a 
difference.      And  therefore,    as   compensation  in  lieu  of    money,    you 
ought  to   be    satisfied  with   the  fact   that   there's   a  lot    of    psychic 
income  associated  with  being  in  these   responsible   positions. 
Well,    psychic  income   doesn't  buy   food  for   the   kids,    or   put   them 
through   school    or  what  have  you.      So,    there  was  not  a  lot   of    good 
feeling  in  the   course   of    the   two  terms   of  Governor  Jerry  Brown. 


Extension's  Budget  Cuts  Restored  by    the  University 


Kendrick:      As  far  as  agriculture  was   concerned,    I  had   some   problems.      I 
think  we  had  another   cut   that  wasn't   particularly  aimed  at 
agriculture,    but  it  was   a  University-wide  reduction.      In  this 
instance,    I  was  able   to  prevail   and  suggest  that  we  were  gcir.g  to 
take  our  fair    share. 


During  one   of    these   reductions  that   the  University   was   going 
to  take — and  I  think  it  was  related  to  that  early  favored 
position;   even  though   the  people  involved  were  different,    the 
memory  lingers  on — Cooperative  Extension  was  targeted  for  about 
an  8   percent   cut.      The  University   had  been  assigned  something   on 
the   order  of  about  a  6  percent   or  5    percent   cut. 

Lage :  That  was  by   the  governor  for   the  University   budget? 

Kendrick:      That  was   in  the   governor's   budget.       It  was  not   a  vindictive    cut, 
it  was  just  a   shortfall   in  revenues,    and  all  state  agencies   were 
having  to   dig  deeply   in  their   pockets.      There  was   one  action 
promoted  by   Governor  Brown  which  did  not  give  the  faculty   any 
salary  relief,    no  range  adjustments.      That  was  applied   somewhat 
to   punish    the   faculty    and   their  "arrogance."     And  we  ate   it.      But 
this  was   a  revenue    shortfall   action,    and  I   don't   recall 
particularly  what  year  it  was. 

But   Saxon  and  the  budget  office    people   decided  that 
Cooperative  Extension  was  low   in  priority,    below   some   of    the 
other  areas  that  they   wanted  to  fund.      So  they   decided  to  assign 
a   greater   percentage   cut  to  extension   than   they   did   the   total 
University's   budget.       Now,    that   didn't   set  very    well   with   the 
agricultural   interests,   and  I  had  somewhat   of   a   problem   to 
contain  that  unhappiness  internally,     in  extension.       I   really 
didn't  want  to   be  associated  with   bringing  about  a   strong  politi 
cal    action  in  the  legislature   to   counter    the   President's  action. 

Lage:  Because  extension  had   the  local   connections   to   gather   the 

political    forces   in  the  counties? 


213 


Kendrick:      That's   true.      You   can   play   that   political   maneuvering  once   in   & 
while,    but  you  really   ought   to  play    it  when  it  really   counts. 
And   since  it  wasn't   going  to  amount   to  a  lot   of   dollars  and 
cents,    we  were   sort  of  waiting  and  seeing.      We  were  not   silent 
about  it,    but  to  my  knowledge  we   took  no  active   efforts  to   stir 
up  the   crowd  about   that   differential.      I  advised  the  President 
against  his   plan  when  he  suggested  to  me   that  he  was    going  to   cut 
the   extension  budget  like    this.      I   said,    "You  are  the  author   of 
how  you  are   going  to  allocate  your  funds,    but   I  would   caution  you 
against   it  because   that   particular  unit  has  a   strong  political 
base.      It   could  be   somewhat   embarrassing  to  you  in   due    course." 

I* 

David  listened  attentively   to  my   comments,    and  he  said, 
well,    he'd  think  about  it.      But  he  finally   proposed  to   take    this 
reduction   differentially.      I'd  also   indicated   to   the   President 
that  what  he  was  advocating  was  a  perfectly  legitimate   budgeting 
technique,    that  I  would  agree  that  cutting  some  programs  more 
than  others  made   good   sense   because   if  you're   taking  a   budget 
reduction  and  you  just   nip  everybody,    you  have  some  programs 
which   can't  handle  a  little  reduction,    and   these   suffer 
excessively   while   the  larger  units  could  probably  absorb  them   in 
due   course  without  having  a  major  program   problem.      But   that 
nevertheless,    his   suggesting  that   Cooperative  Extension  take   the 
larger   share   of   this  cut  was   going  to   cause   some   problems 
politically.      And   sure   enough,    it   did. 

As   I   said,   we  weren't   silent  about  what   effects   the   cut 
would  have  because  we  have  a  constituency   who  read  the  papers  and 
know    that  we  have  to   deal  with  budget  reductions.      There's   also 
an  agricultural   lobby    in  Sacramento  that  follows  very   diligently 
all   agricultural   actions,    and  we  had   the  University's 
Governmental   Relations  Office  in  Sacramento,    and  they   followed 
constantly   issues   that   affect   us,    particularly   the   budget.      So  it 
was  no  secret   that   this  was   going  to  happen. 

What  really  was  at   stake  here  was   that   the   overall 
reduction,    money   reduction,    was  for  the  University,    and  we  were 
told,    "You   can  take  it  where  you  want  to."     But    then   the 
legislature  wanted  to  know  where  we  were  going  to  take   the  cut, 
because  if  we  were  to  take  it  out   of   the   affirmative  action,    that 
exercises  a  number   of    the  people.      If  we  were  to  take  it  out   of 
another   program,    that  exercises  another   group  of   people.      If  you 
take   it  out   of   agriculture,    that  exercises  another   group  of 
people. 

So  when  it   came   time  to  appear  before  the  Senate  Finance 
Subcommittee  one  morning,    public  service  funds,    of  which 
Cooperative  Extension  is  the  major   share   of   that  particular 
budget   item,    was   the  topic   of    the  review.      Senator    [Kenneth  L.] 


214 


Kendrick:      Maddy  from   Fresno  and  Senator    [Walter  W.]    Stiern  from   Kern 

County,    and  Senator    [Nicholas   C.]    Petris   from   Oakland  were   the 
three  members  of   the  subcommittee.      The  main  testifier  from   the 
University   was  Bill   Frazer,    who  was  the  academic  vice   president. 
This  was  in  the  latter   part   of    the   Saxon   era. 

We   came   to  this   topic,    and  Senator  Maddy   said,    "What  about 
this   allocation  of  8   percent  reduction  to    Cooperative   Extension?" 
I  was  in  the  witness   chair,    and  I   said.    "Senator,    this  was   not  my 
recommendation.      I   think  you  ought  to  listen  to  another 
representative  who  has   overall  responsibility   for  the  academic 
program   of   the  institution.      And   since   this  was   counter   to   my 
recommendation.    I   think  you  should  listen  to  his  justification 
for  it."     Bill  took  the   chair,    and  he   did  about  as  well   as  he 
could,    explaining  that   good  budgetary   practices   dictated  the  fact 
that  you  make   differential   allocations   of   cuts   rather   than  nip 
around   the   edges.       He   made   good  logical    sense.       I'll  condense   a 
good  deal   of   conversation  into  one   sentence:      The   senator 
ultimately   said,    "Well,    you  may   have   the  logic  on  your   side,    but 
I've    got    the  votes   on  mine."      [laughter]      "I   suggest  you  restore 
that   cut    so   that   it's  equalized  with   the  rest   of    the 
institution,"  and   that's   the  way   it   worked  out.      We    didn't  have 
any   organized  campaign,    but   it  left  a  lot  of    ill   feelings   in  the 
institution. 


The  Budget  as  a   Political   Document 


Kendrick:      It  left  a  lot   of    ill   feelings  within   Cooperative  Extension 

against    the   president.      He   really   didn't   need   to   do    that.      The 
amount  of   dollars  they  were   going  to  achieve  in   that  area  were 
minimal,    in  my  judgment,    and  the  political   price   that  he  paid  was 
somewhat  of  an  embarrassment,    to  be  told  that  you  may  have  your 
priorities,    but    I've  got  mine.      And  mine  are  going  to  prevail 
because   I'm  voting  on  your    budget. 

This  kind  of    reinforced  within  Cooperative  Extension  and  its 
leadership  a  feeling   that   the   president   really    didn't    care  about 
Cooperative  Extension,    that  it  was   being  punished  for   all   the 
personnel    troubles   arising  out   of   Cooperative  Extension,    relative 
to  affirmative  action  and  alleged  discrimination  in  handling 
personnel   problems   by  its  management.      And  it  reinforced   the 
suspicion — without   any   good  justified  explanation  that  the 
President  was  taking  it  out  on   Cooperative  Extension — without 
really  caring  whether  personnel   deficiencies  in  management  were 
there  or  not. 

Lage :  Did  you  fee1,    that  it  was  a   punishment   for   this   type   of   thing  too, 

or  just   purely  a   budgetary   decision? 


215 


Kendrick:      I   don't   think  it  was  a   punishment   reaction   by   Saxon.       I    don't 

think  that  he  felt   that  it  was  as   important  as  faculty  salaries, 
or  as  important  as  some   of   the  more   critical    campus-based 
programs,    and  therefore  it  was  lower  in  the  priority   of   things  to 
be    concerned  about.      And   therefore  it   could   stand  a  higher 
reduction  in  its  base  budget  than  something  more  important,    in 
his   point    of  view. 

But   the   thing  that  David  overlooked,    and  was  never  in  my 
judgment   completely  in  tune  with,   were  the  political  forces  at 
work  in  the  state.      The  budget  is  a   political   document,    and  it's 
no  accident  that  when  David  Gardner  became   president,    he   combined 
the  budget   responsibilities  with   the  University   Relations  Office. 
Because  he   said,    "Once   that   budget  is   put  together,    you   get   it 
funded   by    the   political    process,     and  not   by   any   logic."     I 
quickly  learned  in   my  vice   presidency   that  logic  is   the  lifeblood 
of    the  academic   decision-making  process,    but   once  you  leave  that 
environment,    you've   got  to   be   pretty   doggone   political.      And   if 
you  want  your  viewpoint   to  prevail,    you  have  to  convince  people 
who  are  not  trained  like  you,    who  have  voting  responsibilities 
and  public  representation  responsibilities,    that  what  you  have   to 
say  is  important.      They  want  to  know  how  many   people  out   there 
also   think  it   is   important. 

To   illustrate   the  political   process  at  work  in  one  of   my 
requests,    I'll   tell  you  exactly  how    the   IPM    [Integrated   Pest 
Management]    program  was  funded  in  a  very   interesting  way.      It 
took  place  in  about   a  minute,   minute-and-a-half,    conversation 
with   the  state   director   of   food  and  agriculture,    Rich  Rominger, 
Jim  Kendrick  and  Governor  Jerry  Brown,    at   a  meeting  in  San  Diego 
where  Jerry  Brown  was  the  principal   speaker.      Rich  and  I  went  up 
to   the   speaker's   table  just  to   say  hello  and   get   this  last  word 
in,    because  he  was  about   ready   to  sign   off   on  his  budget.      He 
asked  Rich  if   this  was  an  important   program  to  him,    and  Rich 
said,    "Absolutely.      Without   this   program,    we  won't  be   able   to 
regulate    these    pesticides."      The    governor    replied,     "Okay." 

Lage :  Had  you  done   some  work  with  Rich  before? 

Kendrick:      Absolutely,    we'd  done  much  work  with  Rich  and  many   others! 
[laughter] 

Lage:  Well,     let's   talk  about   that  in  more  detail   next   time. 

Kendrick:      We   can   do   that.      But  what   I'm   saying  is   that   despite   the  fact 
that   the  University   was  having  all  kinds  of   problems  with 
Governor  Jerry  Brown  and  his  approach  to   budgeting,    I  again  felt 
that  we  did  reasonably   well   in  agriculture — except  for  the  fact 
that  when  the  institution  suffers,   agriculture  suffers   also 
because    our    faculty    package    is   the   same  as  everybody   else's. 
When  salaries  aren't  increased   or  kept    pace  with   competitive 


216 


Kendrick:      institutions,    then  our   budget   also  suffers   because   that  large 
amount   of    money    that   comes   to  support   people's   activities  is  a 
part   of    that   overall   budget.      And   then  it   gets   segregated   every 
year  from    the  University's   total   budget,    so  it   shows   that   the 
Agricultural  Experiment   Station  has  had  a   budget   increase,    if 
faculty    and  staff   salaries  have  been  increased.      But   usually    it 
was  a   salary   range  adjustment  and  an  indexed  increase  for   cost    of 
living  resulting  in  more  dollars   than  we  had  the  previous  year. 
But  it   didn't  result  in  one   dime  for  a  new    program. 

During  most   of    the  latter   part  of    the  Reagan  administration, 
and  after  Dick  Lyng  went  to  Washington,    D.C..    Jerry    Fielder  was 
made   director   the  Department   of   Food  and  Agriculture.      He  lost 
his  life  in  an  airplane  accident.      Following   this   tragic   event,    a 
member  of    the  Board  of   Food  and  Agriculture,    and  a   colleague   of 
mine,    Bru    [C.   Brunei]    Christensen,    became   the   director   of    Food 
and  Agriculture.      Bru  was  a   strong  advocate  for  agriculture  and 
appreciated   the  University's   role   in    serving    California's 
agriculture.       So  I  felt   that  if   I  really  needed  political   support 
in  dealing  with  the  legislature   or  with   the   executive   branch,    I 
had  a   receptive   opportunity    to  do   so.      The  legislature  itself  was 
where  I  was  experiencing  a  lot  of  problems,    but  they  were  largely 
philosophical    problems;    they   didn't  result   in  budgetary 
adj  ustments. 


Brown's   Major  Agricultural   Appointments: 
Rich  Rominger 


Tim  Wallace,    Rose  Bird, 


Kendrick:      During  the  Jerry  Brown  administration,    I  started  with  Rose  Bird 
as   the   secretary   of    the  Agriculture  and   Services  Agency,   and  Tim 
Wallace,    who  was  on  our   staff  when  he  accepted  an  appointment  as 
director  of   the  Department   of   Food  and  Agriculture.      Tim  was  an 
extension  economist,    who  went  on  leave  from   the  University   to 
accept   the  appointment  as    director. 

The  established  agricultural   units  of    the  state  ultimately 
became   disenchanted  with  Tim.      Probably  what   caused   the 
disenchantment   more  than  anything  was  his  strong  advocacy   for 
consumer  representation  on  marketing  boards.      There  is  a   state 
statute  which   the  Department  of  Food  and  Agriculture  administers 
that  authorizes  the  establishment   of   commodity  marketing  order 
boards.      Marketing  order  boards   are   producer-dominated   boards 
which,    through  a   process  of  membership  approval,    tax  themselves 
for   promotional    sales  activities  and  in  many   instances  support 
research  programs.      It's  somewhat   complicated  to  form   a  marketing 
order  board.      For   approval    to  establish   a  marketing  order  board 
for  a  specific   commodity,    a   specified   percentage    of    the  acreage's 
ownership  must  vote  favorably  on  its  formation.      The  list   of  who 


217 


Kendrick:      is  eligible  to  vote  is  assembled  by   the   Department   of   Food  and 
Agriculture.       But    once    it's   approved,     then  all    members   of    the 
commodity-producing  group  belong  and  must  tax  themselves  on  some 
production  unit  basis   and  contribute   to  the  marketing  order  fund 
for   that   commodity.      The  fund  is   then  allocated  to  activities  on 
the  basis  of   recommendations  from   the  board  composed  of   the 
grower  members  of   the   commodity  marketing  order. 

Well,    the  authorizing  statute  also  states  that  the  consumer 
shall   be  represented  on  the  marketing  order  boards.      Up   until 
this   time   the  consumer  was  never  really   represented  because 
agriculture  just   didn't  want   to   be   bothered  with   "outsiders" 
commenting  on  how   boards  should  administer  these   funds  equally 
since   the   origin  of   the  funds   came  from   the   growers   themselves 
and  was  not   composed  of    the   general    tax  fund.      The  prevailing 
attitude  was,    "It's  our  money,    we  ought   to   be  able   to   allocate  it 
the  way   we  want   to." 

Tim  wanted  to  interpret  the  law   more  strictly  than  his 
predecessors  and  get    consumers  represented  on   the   boards — there 
must   have  been  thirty   or   forty   active  boards.      He  began  placing 
consumers  on  the   boards,   and   that  angered   the   traditional 
members.      They   generally   responded  with  dismay   and  asked,    "Why 
are  you   doing  this?       It's  our  money."     Tim   countered  with   a   legal 
interpretation  from   the  attorney   general's  office    that   it  was  not 
their  money  because  once   the   boards   use   the   policing  power   of   the 
state   to  tax  individuals,    that  money   becomes   public  money.      It's 
not   solely   growers'   money  anymore;    it   becomes   public   funds 
administered  by   public   agencies  of   government. 

Well,   you  can  imagine   that   that  just    didn't    swallow  very 
well   as  far  as   organized  agriculture  was  concerned.      Some  boards 
voted  to   disband:      the  Wine   Institute,    for  instance,    wasn't    going 
to  put   up  with  any   of    that   stuff,    so  they   just   disbanded  their 
marketing  board.      There  were   some  others   that  were   equally 
unhappy.     Ultimately  because   of    this   and  a   number  of   other 
actions,    Tim  was   persuaded  that  he  had  lost   the   confidence   of 
organized  agriculture,     and  he'd  be   happier   returning  to  the 
University.      Which  he   did.      I've   simplified   a  more   complex 
problem   including  Tim's  relationship  with  Secretary  Bird,    which 
led  to  his  resignation  as   director,   but   the  marketing  order  issue 
was  a   major   factor  in  agriculture's  disenchantment  with  him  as 
the   director. 

Rose  Bird  spent  a   good   deal    of    her   early   activities   getting 
the  Agricultural  Labor  Relations  Act    designed  and  enacted.      It  was 
a   time   of   uneasy   truce  with  agriculture.      Lionel    Steinberg,    I 
think,   was   the   president   of   the   State  Board   of   Food  and 
Agriculture,    and  by   this   time   that   ex  officio   spot   on  the  Board 
of  Regents  was    gone.     Lionel  was  from   Indio,    in  the   Coachella 
Valley.      He  was   a   good  Democrat   and  had   previously    served   on  the 


218 


Kendrick:     Board   of  Agriculture.      He   also  was  a   nontraditional 

agriculturalist  as  far  as  his  farming  colleagues  were  concerned 
because  he  had  a  certain  amount   of    sympathy   towards   organized 
labor.      He   tried  to  make   it  work  and  tried  to  be   sympathetic 
toward  it.      So  he  had  one   of    the  earliest    contracts  with   the 
United   Farm   Workers.    Cesar   Chavez's   union. 

Lage:  He  was  appointed  by  Brown,   you  said? 

Kendrick:     Yes.      Jerry  Brown.      The  president   of    the   State  Board  of    Food  and 
Agriculture  is  appointed  annually.      They    are    often   reappointed. 
but   it's  not  a   multi-year   term   like    the  other  members  of   the 
board. 

There  were  also   other  members  of   the  Board  of   Food  and 
Agriculture  who  saw   that  farm  labor  unrest  was  a  losing 
proposition.      It  was  something  that  everybody  wished  would  cease 
and  desist.      So  when   the  Agricultural  Labor  Relations  Act  was 
working  its  way    through   the  legislature,    agriculture,    on  the 
basis   of   the   governor's   promise   that    this   Agricultural  Labor 
Relations  Board  would  bring  peace   to   the  fields  and  mediate   the 
differences,    backed  off  and  in  a   sense   said,    "Well,    we  won't 
oppose    it."     So   it  was   enacted.      And  then  Governor  Brown 
proceeded  to  appoint  four   strong  advocates   for   the  United   Farm 
Workers   to  a   five-member  board.      Agriculture  felt  that   the 
governor  had  really   done   them   in,    sold   them   down   the   river.      And 
they   had  absolutely   no   sympathy    for  Jerry   Brown  from    then  on  in. 
They   ceased  to  trust  him   to   do  a   thing  on  their  behalf.       I 
believe  most   farmers  attribute   that  lack  of   trust   to  that  one 
act.      Rose  Bird  was   also   tarred  with   that    same   brush.      They,    the 
farmers,    felt   betrayed. 

Lage:  Did  they   feel    that   she  had  a   role   in  the  appointments,    or   that 

she  had  misled  them  in  promising  something  from   the  board  that 
didn' t   occur? 

Kendrick:      Well,    I   think  both.      They  knew    that   she  was  Jerry's   principal 
agricultural  advisor,   and  when  several  union  sympathizers  were 
appointed  members   of    the  Agricultural  Labor  Relations  Board,    and 
the  executive   secretary,   who  had  a  lot   of   influence,    came   right 
out    of    organized  labor's   units,    they    had  strong  evidence   of    that 
betrayal.     And   then  in  order  to  assemble    the  work  force   to   get 
the  Labor  Relations  Act   implemented,    they   recruited  staff   from 
among  organized  labor   people.      So  as   far  as  agriculture  was 
concerned,    what   they   found  themselves  saddled  with  was  a  state- 
supported  labor   organization,    an  advocacy   group,    not  an 
independent   arbitration  unit   that  would  listen  to  both  sides  of 
an  issue  and  make   a  judicial  judgment. 


219 


Kendrick:      So   that  was  not   only   tough  to  handle,    but  it   placed  agriculture 

pretty   much  at  war  with  the  Brown  administration.      The  Department 
of   Food  and  Agriculture's   successor   to   Tim  Wallace  was   Rich 
Rominger,    who  was  also  at  that  time  a  member  of   the  Board  of   Food 
and  Agriculture,    a  farmer  from  Winters  who  was  a  longtime 
personal    friend  of   mine.      We  had  a   close   and  supportive 
relationship.      So   during  all    of    the  hullaballoo  that  existed  as 
far  as  organized  agriculture  and  the  governor  was   concerned,    I 
had  a  way   to   get  to   the   governor  and  his   staff,    through  Rich,   who 
although  not  an  assertive   director,    at  least  had  the  confidence 
of    the   governor,   and   the   governor  listened  to  him  for 
agricultural   advice. 

Lage :  Did  he  have  a  nontraditional    approach   in  terms  of   agriculture? 

Kendrick:      Sort   of.      But  he's   a  hardworking  farmer   near  Winters,    and  he  has 
to  make   ends  meet.      Rich's  value   in  that  role  was   that  he  was 
willing  to  listen  to   criticism,   willing  to  acknowledge   some   past 
practices,    such   as   pesticide   usage,    as   being  detrimental    to  the 
environment,  and  recognizing  that   consumerism  and  environmental 
quality   advocates   groups  had  a   role   to  play    in  the  agricultural 
society.      He  was  a  Davis   graduate  and  a   good   student.       I   think  he 
really   was   the  only  person  who   could  fill   the  role  of   trying  to 
deal  with  the  extreme  positions  advocated  by   the   governor,    or 
even  Rose  Bird.      I   thought   I  had  a   cordial   working  relationship 
with  Rose  Bird,    but   I   didn't  have  to  work  with  her  very    closely. 

Lage:  She  wasn't   in  too  terribly   long,    was   she? 

Kendrick:      No.      Not  more   than  a   couple   of  years   because  when  the   chief 

justice   of    the   state  Supreme  Court  position  became  vacant.    Jerry 
appointed  her   to   that    position. 

Another   political    maneuver   took  place  at  this  time,    because 
when  Rich  was  first  made  director  of   the  Department   of   Food  and 
Agriculture,    the  representative   of    agriculture  on  the  cabinet  was 
Rose  Bird,    the   secretary   for  agriculture  and  services.      It  was 
tough    for    agriculture. 

Earl    Coke,    under  Governor  Reagan,    was   the  one   that   created 
the   secretary's   position  in  the  first   place,    and   the  agriculture 
department   had  won  the   day   by   having  a   secretary  of   agriculture 
and   services  with   cabinet  representation.      Earl  was   a  very   close 
confidant   of   the  governor.      But  when  the  secretary   was  Rose  Bird, 
the  agricultural    community    didn't   feel   represented. 

Lage:  She  was   the  first   one  who  didn't   come  out   of   agriculture,    wasn't 

she? 


220 


Kendrick:      Yes,    but   the   creation  of    the   secretary   of   agriculture  and 

services  was   done  by   Governor  Reagan.      Prior   to  that   time,    the 
director — the  Department   of   Food  and  Agriculture  had  a   cabinet 
position.      Then  Governor  Reagan  made    the   super-agencies  and 
incorporated  administratively  more  functions   than  just  a   single 
department    in   those    secretaryships.      That's  when  the  department's 
administrator  became  subcabinet  level.      A  group   of   agricultural 
interests  of    the  state,    and  I  was  included,    met  several    times 
with  the  governor,   and  ultimately   prevailed  upon  him   to  recognize 
the  importance   of   agriculture  and  its  representation  as  a  cabinet 
member.      In  due  course  the   director   of    the   Department   of   Food  and 
Agriculture  was  made   a  cabinet  officer. 

So  Rich  became  a  cabinet   officer,   which  was  an  important 
move.      Even  in  a   fairly   hostile   state   government   as   far  as 
agriculture  was   concerned,    when  the   governor  was   persuaded   to   pay 
a  little  more  attention  to  agriculture,    Rich  was  the  ideal   person 
to  push  the  governor  in  subtle  ways   into   positions   that  were 
somewhat   favorable   to  agriculture.      Rich   didn't   enjoy    the 
undying,    or  uncompromising,   support   of   all    traditional 
agriculture  because   they    felt  he  was  a  little  too  sympathetic  in 
dealing  with  labor  and  a  little  too   sympathetic  towards    consumers 
"messing  around"  in  agricultural    matters — the  same  kind  of   move 
that   I  was  making  in  the  University.      The  reason  Rich  and   I 
worked  so  well   together.    I  think,    is  that  we  had  the  same 
motivation  and  goals,   and  we  both  had  to   deal  with  fairly 
traditional   departments.      So  we  had  to  make    some   changes. 

Lage:  Interesting  correlation. 

Kendrick:      I   felt   that  we  had  a  very    good  relationship,    and  Rich  stayed  with 
that  role   until  Jerry  Brown   did  not  run  for  a   third  term. 


The  Deukmej ian-Gardner  Years: 
Stature  and  Its  Budget 


Restoring  the  University's 


Kendrick:      Now,    we've  gotten  to  the  third  change   in  the  governorship   during 
my   tenure.      That   occurred  with  Deukmej  ian's   election.      Governor 
Deukmej  ian's   relationship  with   the  University,    as  all   the 
evidence   shows,    has   been   tremendously   favorable. 


Kendrick:      Therein  begins  another   regime  as   far  as  the  University 

administration  is    concerned;   that's  when  Dave  Gardner   became 
president    of    the  University. 


221 


Lage:  Is   that   by   design  that   these   presidential    changes   take   place  at 

the   same   time   the  governor   changes? 

Kendrick:      No. 

Lage:  Just  has  happened  the  last   couple   of    times? 

Kendrick:      That's   been  a   coincidence.       I    think   governors    [laughing]    have 
worn  out   our   presidents,    as  much  as  internal   activities  are 
concerned.      I   don't   think  David  Saxon  really  wanted  to   put   up 
with  another  governor.      He  had  served  eight  years  with  Jerry 
Brown  as   governor  and   that  took  its  toll   from   David's  energy,     I'm 
certain. 

Lage:  So   it's   starting  over  again,    with  a  new   governor. 

Kendrick:      I  think  if  he'd  realized   the  support   that  was   going  to   come  from 
the  governor's   chair  in  Sacramento,    he  might  have  looked  at   it   in 
a   different  light.      But   I   think  David  Saxon  was   tired,    worn  out. 
You  get  worn  out.      These  jobs   are  just   as  abrasive  as   they   can 
be.      There's   a  lot   of   glamour  associated  with  being  the    president 
of    the  University   of   California,    but   they   have   tough   assignments. 
You  have   people   gnawing  at  you  all    the    time.      The  moments   of 
glory   are  few    and  far  between,    and  the  rest  of   the  time  is  spent 
trying  to  keep  the  place  together  and   trying  to   drain  the   swamp 
filled  with   alligators.       It's   not  all   that  it  appears   to  be.       In 
my  judgment,    they  earn  every  cent  that   they   pay   them   because 
they're    short-lived   positions.       They're   not   the   traditional 
presidencies  that  used  to   be  associated  with  a  university   or 
college,    where  you  spend  your   career  as  a   president,    enjoying  all 
the   nice   things   that  happen  to  you,    where  you're  revered  by    the 
total    constituency    of    the   institution.       That's  not   the   case 
anymore.       It's   a  rat   race   to    stay    ahead   of    the    critics. 

So,    the  Deukmej  ian-Gardner  era  came,    and  David  Gardner  was 
able  to   convince   the   governor   that   one   of   the   things   that  he 
could  be   long  remembered  for  would  be   to  restore  the  University 
to  its  once-high   stature,   recognizing   the  fact   that  it  was   unique 
and  it  had  a  quality    faculty   which  was  in  danger  of  being 
destroyed  by  not    compensating  it  in  relationship  to  its  leading 
competitive  institutions.      President  Gardner   convinced  the 
governor   that  he   could   do  much  to  restore   that  quality   by 
preventing  the   drain  of   people  going  away   to  other  places  because 
they  received  more  attractive  job   offers.      And   that  happened;    in 
the  course   of   about   two  years'    time,    there  was  about   a   thirty- 
five   percent   increase  in  faculty   salaries,    and  we're  now    slightly 
ahead  of    the  average   for   our   competitive  eight  institutions.      In 
my  judgment,    it  was  all  attributed  to   the  relationship   that   David 
Gardner   and  Governor  Deukmej  ian  have   developed. 


222 


Lage:  Do  you  have   some   knowledge  about  whether  it's   particularly 

Gardner's  approach   that  won  Deukmej  ian  over,    or   do  you  think  that 
Deukmej  ian  had   these   sympathies? 

Kendrick:      No,    I   think  Deukmej  ian,    more   than  the  two   previous    governors, 

understands   the  importance   of   education.      In  spite   of   his   running 
battle  with    [State  Superintendent  of   Schools  William]    Konig  over 
the  funding  of  community  college  and  K-12   programs,    I   think  the 
governor   really   does  understand  quality   education.      I   think  that 
if   he   could  be   convinced   that   the  money   going  into  education  is 
money   well   spent  and  not  sort  of   frittered  away   in  programs   that 
are  not  really   directed  towards  education,   he  would   be  willing  to 
give   these    schools  what   they   need.      He  recognizes   that  Honig's   on 
the   other  end  of   the   political   spectrum  from   him.      So   part   of 
their   difference    is   a   political   difference;    it's   not  just   an 
educational    philosophy    difference. 

But  with  David  Gardner  and  Governor  Deukmej  ian,    I  think  both 
showed  up  at  the   concert  with  the   same   sheet   music  and  started 
singing   all   of    it    together.       They're   true   believers.       I    don't 
think  David  had  to  spend  a  lot   of    time   convincing  him    that    the 
University   had  been  disadvantaged  through   the  Brown 
administration,   and  the  most  important   thing  that   the   governor 
could   do   would  be   to  restore   the  stature  of    the  institution. 
There  was  a  lot  of  hard  evidence   that  we  were   getting  second  and 
third  choices  in  our  recruitment  efforts,    and  we  were  losing  some 
significant  faculty  members  from   the   campuses   because   they  were 
being  attracted  to  higher   salaries  and  greater   opportunities 
elsewhere.      If    this  had  been  allowed  to   continue,   it  would   be 
many,    many  years  before  we  could  restore  that  kind  of  quality   in 
our  institution. 

I   don't    think   the   governor   took  a   lot   of   convincing  that 
that  was  indeed   true,   and   that  he   could   gain   positive   points   by 
being  identified  with  being  sympathetic  towards  a  quality   higher 
education  support  in  the   state.      Of   course,    Gardner  is   a  very 
persuasive   person   in  his   own  rights.      He   doesn't  advocate 
something  without  his  homework  being  very  well    done;    he's 
articulate,    and  you'd  have  a  hard  time  debating  an  issue   and 
winning  against  him.      You  can  make   points,    but  he's    going  to  x.ake 
counterpoints.       I    think  he's   developed  this   relationship  with   the 
governor  in  a  very  admirable  manner. 

Just  as  when  I  was   trying  to  get  funding  for   some  of   these 
special   programs   such  as   IPM,    I  wouldn't   say,    "You've   got    to    do 
it,"  and  I   don't  think  Gardner  said,    "You've  got  to  do  it."     He 
put  it  in  the  frame   of    giving   the    governor  a    choice.       "You    don't 
have  to  do  it,   but  if  you  don't,    this  is  going  to  happen.      If  you 
don't,    we'll  just    continue   to    gradually    deteriorate,    little   by 
little.      You  won't   notice   any   dramatic  event,    but   in   due   course 
it  will  show."     Bear  in  mind   that   David  arrived  here  having  spent 


223 


Kendrick:      a  year  as   chairman  of    that   national   study   that   published  with 
great  fanfare   the  document  A  Nation  ^t  Risk,    which  pointed  out 
the   deficiencies   of   public  education  as  it    presently   existed  in 
this   country.      The  report   said  that   if   a  foreign   country   had 
tried  to  weaken   this   country,    they   could  do  no   better   than 
destroy    our    educational   system   by   dropping  the  quality. 

That  was  a  fairly  powerful   document,    pointing  out   the 
importance   of   education  and  the  lack  of   competitiveness.      So  he 
had   the   credentials  to  point  out  to  the   governor,    and  anybody 
else  who  would  listen,    that  we're  just  a   part  of    that   total 
system.      By  neglect  and  lack  of  funding,    the  whole    system  was 
going  to  be   at  risk.      He  had  a  powerful   argument  that  something 
had  to   be   done,    and  it  had  to  be   done  quickly.      He   pointed  out 
also   that   it    didn't   have   to  be   done   all   at  once.      David  proposed 
another  little   bit   of   subtlety,    that  you   could  adopt  a   program    of 
improvement   phased  over   several   years   if  the  deficiencies  are  too 
great   to  overcome  in  a   single  year.      He   said  let's  have  a    goal 
over  a   two-   or   three-year   period,    something  that  is  fundable. 

So,  as  the  University  and  the  faculty's  salaries  got  better, 
a  lot  of  the  internal  unhappiness  dropped.  Of  course  Cooperative 
Extension's  salaries  were  linked  to  the  funding  adjustments  also. 

Another   thing  that  David  Gardner  recognized,    and  I  never  had 
to  spend  a  lot  of   time   persuading  him  not  to   do,    was   separating 
out   the  faculty   salaries  from   all  academic  salaries.      David  Saxon 
always  wanted  to  increase  just   the  faculty,    recognizing  that   they 
were   the  backbone   of   the  institution,      I  never  argued  with   the 
fact   that   they  were   the   backbone   of    the  institution,   but   there 
were   certainly  a  lot  of   other   political   aspects  to  increasing 
faculty   salaries   alone.     When  you  were   talking  about  academics,    I 
had  550   hard-working  academics   in  Cooperative  Extension,    and  if 
they  had  been  so   differentially   treated  in  any  academic   salary 
adjustment,    and  they   had  been  organized,    they   would  probably   have 
gone    on    strike. 

But   as  long  as   the  definition  of  faculty   meant  all  academic 
salaries,   we   could  make  a   case  for   treating  academics   in   some 
fashion  a  little   differently   from   the  non-academics,    for   the 
staff   support.     But  you  want  to   be   careful   about  how  you  treat 
them,    too.      They   are  an  important   part   of    the  institution,    and 
they're   part   of  what  makes   things  function   smoothly.      David 
Gardner   understands   that.       He   didn't   take   a  lot   of    convincing. 
So  my  relationship  with  David  and  his   support  were  superb.      I 
felt  I  retired  with  more   support  and  understanding  than  I  had  in 
any   of    the   three  regimes.      That  was  not  to   say   that   I   didn't  have 
good  support  and  understanding  in  the  other   two,    but   it  was  a 
little  easier  to   convince  David   of    the   importance    of    the 
division's   programs,    and  the  role   they   played  in  the  vitality    of 
the    total    institution. 


224 


Kendrick:      I  did  not   develop   the    same   kind   of   relationship  with   the 

Department   of   Food  and  Agriculture  in  the  Deukmej  ian  regime   that 
I  had  with  Rich  Rominger  and  with  Bru  Christensen,    and  Jerry 
Fielder,    and  Dick  Lyng.      The  director   of   food  and  agriculture  was 
Clare  Berry  hill,      dare  was   a  former   senator  and   a  farmer.      He 
was   a    pretty   politically-driven  person. 

I  was  not  reappointed  to   serve   on  the  State  Board   of   Food 
and  Agriculture  when  my   term   expired  in  1985.      So  my   relationship 
with  the   department  was  a  little  more   distant   than   before.      I  had 
turned  over  a  good  deal    of    the  responsibilities  of   direct 
relationship  with  segments  of   the   department  to   Director    [of    the 
Experiment   Station]    Lowell  Lewis.      So  he  maintained  a   closer 
relationship  with   them   than  I   did.      But   the  University's 
relationship  overall  with   that  particular  regime  in  the 
Department   of   Food  and  Agriculture   tended  to   drift   a  little    bit. 

Lage:  Lack  of    sympathy   on  Berryhill's   part? 

Kendrick:      No.      I   think  it  was   a  lack  of   understanding   of    the  role   of    the 

University    in  agricultural    research   and  extension.       I   don't   think 
his   primary  interests  were  in  improving   that  relationship.      In 
one   of    the  early   sessions  I   had  with  him,    I   had  to  try   and  play 
down  one  of   the  blasts   that  he  had  received  from   a  member   of    the 
faculty   of    the  University   who  had  accused  him  of   something  that 
was   not  very   complimentary.      So  we   didn't    start   off   on  a  very 
good  foot.      He  wanted  to  know   why   I  would  allow    that  sort  of 
expression  to   come  forth  from    the  University.      He  felt   unjustly 
accused  of    something,    I   don't  even  remember   the   subject.      It  was 
not  a  very   politic   thing  to   do  on  the   part   of   one   of   my 
colleagues,    but   it  was   nevertheless  nothing  that   I   could  control 
or   that   I  would  attempt  to   do   so. 

Berryhill  was  also  somewhat  unsympathetic  with  the  makeup  of 
the  Board  of    Food  and  Agriculture.      He    didn't   express   it   as   such, 
but  you  could  tell   that   philosophically   and  politically   it  was 
composed  of  more   critics  of   traditional  agriculturalism,    a 
characteristic  of    the  kind  of   people  Jerry   Brown  had  appointed  to 
the   board.      He  was  out   to  make   changes  on   the   board  and   to  have 
people  who  were  much  more  sympathetic  toward  traditional 
agriculture. 

Richard  Peters  was  appointed  president   of    the  Board  of   Food 
and  Agriculture.      Richard  was  an  agriculturalist  from    Fresno,    a 
longtime   supporter   of    the  governor,    both   financially   and  morally. 
He  is  an  Armenian  and  a   political   confidante   of    the   governor.      I 
had  a   reasonably   good  relationships  with  Richard.      But  my  own 
need  to  work  as   closely  with  the    department  as    I  had  in   previous 
administrations  was  not  as   great,    as   I    indicated,    because    the 
director  of   the  Agricultural  Experiment   Station  was  engaged  in 


225 


Kendrick:      more   of    the  operational   relationships.      Cooperative  Extension  had 
kind  of    an  oblique  relationship  with  the  department,    wherever 
they  were  engaged  in   similar  activities   of  an  educational   nature. 

As   far  as   the  budgetary   support  was  concerned,    we  had  some 
interesting   developments  with   the   governor,    and   that's   one   of    the 
topics   of   funding  that  we'll  come   to  when  we  talk  about   special 
projects   that   the  experiment    station   undertook. 

Lage:  So   that's  what  we'll   turn  to  next   time. 


226 


XII      SPECIAL   RESEARCH  UNITS  WITHIN  THE  AGRICULTURAL   EXPERIMENT 
STATION 


Giannini   Foundation  for  Research   in  Agricultural   Economics 

The  Original   Grant  and  Organization 
[Date   of   Interview:      October  22.    1987]    ## 


Lage:  Today   is  October  22,   1987;   this   is  our   ninth   session  with  James 

Kendrick.      We're   going  to   talk  about   the  Agricultural   Experiment 
Station  and  some  of    the  special    programs  you  began  to  introduce 
flexibility   into   the   research   program. 

Kendrick:      The  experiment   station  in  1968,    under  Director   Clarence  Kelly, 
was   certainly  not   performing  unimportant  research,    but  it  was 
having  some   trouble  managing  its  meager  resources  in  order  to 
meet  all   the   defined  problems   of   commercial   agriculture.      The 
most  vocal    concern  expressed  by   the  clients,    so   to   speak,    the 
commercial  agricultural  interests,   was  that  we  were  not   paying 
enough   attention  to  marketing  and  economic  problems.      That  was 
laid  at   the  feet   of    the  Giannini   Foundation's  not    performing   in  a 
manner   that   the  commercial   agricultural    interests  of   the  state 
had  been  accustomed  to,    in   dealing  with   the  Giannini   Foundation. 
And  that  was   due   in  large   part   to  the  personnel   of   the  Giannini 
Foundation. 

Let   me   describe   the  Giannini   Foundation  because    that's  one 
of   the  units  we  were   going  to   discuss  today. 

Lage:  Was   that  a   unit  within  the — ? 

Kendrick:      That's  a   unit  within   the  experiment   station.       It  has   a  long 
history   because    it    goes   back  to  an  original   grant   from   A.    P. 
Giannini,    when  he  was   president   of   the  Bank  of    Italy,    which  was 
the   predecessor   of    the  Bank  of   America.      He   gave   the  University 
$1.5   million,   from  which  they  built  Giannini  Hall   on   the 


227 


Kendrick:     Berkeley   campus  and  had  a  residue  left   over,    for  which   there  was 
a   trust   statement  as   to  how    that   could  be  used.      It  was  to 
support  agricultural  research,    aimed  at  improving  the  economic 
status   of    a  whole  array   of    things.      The  charge  would  almost 
include  anything  you  wanted  to   do  in  the  Agricultural  Experiment 
Station,    but   it  became  predominantly  an  economics  research 
institute. 

The  unique    thing  that   the  Giannini   Foundation  did  in  its 
operation  was  to  have  fellows  appointed  in  the  Giannini 
Foundation  as  a   distinct   appointment,    in  addition  to  an 
experiment   station  appointment   or  a   professorial   appointment. 

Lage :  You  mean  one   person  would  hold  the  three   titles. 

Kendrick:      One   person  could  be  listed  as   a  fellow   in  the  Giannini 

Foundation,    as  well   as,    say,    an  agricultural   economist  in  the 
experiment    station.      In  those   days   they   started  as   a  junior 
agricultural    economist,    and  went  to  an  assistant  agricultural 
economist,    next  an  associate  agricultural   economist,   and   then 
just   agricultural   economist.      That  was  the  series  within  the 
experiment   station,   and  then  of   course   the   parallel   faculty 
series  was   instructor,    then  an  assistant   professor,    an  associate 
professor,    and  full   professor.      Each  one   of   those   steps  were 
ranks,    and  they   constituted  a   promotion,    from   one   rank  to 
another. 

A  fellow    in  the  Giannini  Foundation  did  not  have  any   rank, 
in  those   steps.     You  were  just   given  the   courtesy   title  as  fellow 
in  the  Giannini   Foundation.      The  only  qualification  for  being  a 
fellow   in  the  Giannini  Foundation  was   being  appointed  as   a 
regular  faculty   member  in  the  Department   of  Agricultural 
Economics.      Originally,    the  only   Department   of  Agricultural 
Economics  was   on  the  Berkeley  campus,    so  the  Giannini  Foundation 
was   centered,    in  its   early  years,    on  the  Berkeley   campus. 

The  director  was  also  the  chairman  of   the  department  at 
Berkeley.      In  its   early  years,    it  addressed  specifically   economic 
problems  and  market  evaluations  for  particular  commodities  of 
California's  agricultural   crops.      It  was   highly   regarded   by 
commercial    agriculture  as  an  organization  within  the  University 
that  was  really  helping  a  lot  in  marketing  the   commodities 
successfully.      Some   of    the  individuals  who  helped  guide    the 
Giannini  Foundation  were  Claude  Hutchison,    Harry  Wellman,    George 
Mehren,    Ray    [Raymond]    Bressler,    David  Clarke    [Jr.],    and  Loy 
Sammet — I'm  not  sure  Loy  was   ever   director   of    the  Giannini 
Foundation.      But   in  any   event,    those  were   the  people  who  paid  a 
lot   of   attention  to   the  agriculture's  economic   stresses   and 
strains. 


228 


Kendrick:      Well,   as   I  indicated,    the  only   requirement  for   being  a  fellow    of 
the  Giannini   Foundation  was   being  appointed  to  the  faculty  of    the 
departments   of   agricultural   economics  at   Davis   or  Berkeley.      And 
associate  fellows  were  those  who  were  agricultural  economists  in 
forestry,   at  Berkeley,    or  economists   in  the   soils  and 
environmental    sciences  at  Riverside,    and  all   of    the  agricultural 
economists   in   Cooperative  Extension.      To  help   the   director  in   the 
governance   of    the  foundation  there  was  what  was  called  an 
executive  committee  composed  of  representatives  from  Davis, 
Berkeley,    and   Cooperative   Extension. 

The  foundation  also  supported  a  rather   comprehensive 
graduate  library.      Over   time,    it  has   developed  into  one   of    the 
most  complete  libraries   of  agricultural  economics   that   I'm   aware 
of — so   it   has   a   good  reputation. 

Lage:  Did  the  fellows   get  an  extra  stipend? 

Kendrick:      No.       It's   a   courtesy    title.      All    of    the  University's    agricultural 
economists   published  under   the  logo   of    the  Giannini   Foundation, 
and  so   the  Giannini   Foundation  for  Agricultural   Economics  has   a 
reputation  far  exceeding  the  amount   of   money   that    goes   into 
supporting  the  program.      Most   of  what  was  left  from   the  original 
1.5   million-dollar   grant   after  building  Giannini  Hall,    which  has 
been  increased  by    its  investment  value,    essentially   supports  the 
Giannini  Library.      There  was  a   small   amount   to   support   the 
administration  of    the  foundation — the  director's   stipend,    a  few 
graduate  fellowships,    and  a  few    dollars  for  specific   research 
programs.      The   truth   is   that   the  main  support  for   agricultural 
economic  research  was   the  regular  University   funding,    plus    grant 
funds    that    these   individuals   obtained  from   other   sources. 

But   since  nearly   all   the  research  was   published  with   the 
acknowledgement   of    the  Giannini   Foundation,    it's   easy    to  see   why 
the  reputation  of    the  Giannini   Foundation  was   really   gained   by 
the   total    activity    of    all   the  University's  agricultural 
economists  pursuing  their  regular  research  programs  within  the 
University    of   California.       So  it  had  a   reputation  far  beyond  its 
financial  resources.      It  was  always  a   problem  for  me  to  respond 
to  the  nostalgic  memories  of   people  who  said,    "The  Giannini 
Foundation  is  no  longer  addressing   the   needs   of   agriculture.       The 
faculty   seemed  to  be   more  concerned  with  their  own  professional 
advancement,    and   they   publish   stuff  we    can't    understand." 
Agricultural   economics  was  moving  into  econometrics  and  complex 
mathematical  analyses,    which  wasn't  being   translated  into 
language   and  operations   that   the  commercial   agricultural   people 
understood.      So  it  was   perceived   that   the  Giannini   Foundation  no 
longer  was   really   addressing  problems   of   agriculture. 


229 


Kendrick:      Also,    some   of   the  things  that  the  commercial  representatives  were 
interested  in  were  not  really   academic  research.      As   the  pressure 
for  academic  advancement   continued  to  exist,    assistant   professors 
and  assistants  in  the  experiment   station  realized  that  their 
future   depended  upon  their  ability  to   produce  research   that  had 
quality    in  the  eyes  of    their  peers.      They   sort   of    drifted  with 
the  academic  current,    and  often  those  kinds   of   research   problems 
were  somewhat  remote  and  abstract  as  far  as  commercial  needs  were 
concerned. 

Lage:  That   answer   probably   didn't   satisfy  your   agricultural 

constituency. 

Kendrick:      No,     it    certainly    didn't. 


Restructuring  to  Meet  the  Practical  Needs  of   Commercial 
Agriculture 


Kendrick:      So  we  went   through  a  number  of   changes  of   administration  to  try 
to  construct  a  Giannini   Foundation  that  would   be  able   to  address 
the  problems  of   commercial   agriculture  a  little  bit   differently. 

One   of    the  first   things   I   did  to  address   that   problem,    after 
receiving  some  administrative  advice  from   the  executive 
committee,    was  to   decouple  the   directorship  of   the  Giannini 
Foundation  from   the  chairman  of    the  department  at  Berkeley. 
There  was  also  some   degree  of  rivalry   between  the  Berkeley 
Department   of   Agricultural   Economics  and  the  Davis  Department  of 
Agricultural  Economics.      The  Davis   department  felt   that   they  were 
getting  only   what  was  left  over  from   the  meager  funds  of  the 
Giannini  Foundation  and   that   they  were   not   being  treated 
favorably,    relative   to  their  ability   to  address   some   of    these 
problems  and  in  the  support   of   a  library   of    their   own.      That 
friendly   academic  rivalry  exists  today,    and  probably  will  always 
exist   because  it's   the    nature    of   academic    competition. 

Lage:  And  of    the  relationship  between  Davis  and  Berkeley. 

Kendrick:      Yes,    it    comes  to   play   there. 

One   of    the  things  we   tried  in  the  early  1970s  before 
separating  the   department   chair  from  the   directorship  was  to 
appoint   an  active  associate   director   of    the  Giannini   Foundation, 
who  was   given  the  responsibility   of  trying  to   develop  a   program 
within  the  Giannini   Foundation  with  what  resources  it  had,    and 
also  with  the  expectation  that   it  would  obtain  outside   grant 
money   to  support   particular  kinds   of    research   problems. 


230 


Lage:  To  focus  on   the  more   practical   needs? 

Kendrick:     Yes.      And  that  was   done  but   not   forced  upon  the   director.      The 

executive  committee  of   the  foundation  was  willing  to  try  whatever 
would  reduce    the   climate   of   criticism   as  far  as  the  external 
community  was   concerned. 

The  man  whom    I  asked  to  become  this  associate  director   of   the 
Giannini  Foundation,    and  work  with   the   chair,    was   Dr.    Ken 
Farrell.       (He   is   now    my    successor   as  vice   president.)      Ken 
operated  with  a  level    of  frustration  for   several  years   trying  to 
persuade    the  faculty   to  address   some   of    the  problems.      But   it  was 
a  frustrating  experience  for  him.      He   then  had  an  opportunity   to 
go    to  Washington,    D.C..    in  the  United  States   Department   of 
Agriculture,    as   the   deputy  administrator   of    the  Economic   Research 
Service.      And  that   is  where  he  went.       I  won't   describe   his   career 
because  he    can   do   that  later. 

Lage:  He'll   have  his   turn,    maybe   in  twenty  years.       [laughter] 

Kendrick:     But   that  was  his  last   official   association  with  us.      He  was.   at 
the  time   that   I  asked  him  to  assume  the  role  of   associate 
director   of    the  Giannini   Foundation,    an  extension  agricultural 
economist  with  Cooperative  Extension.      So  he  was  a  known  quantity 
with  a   good  reputation  as  an  agricultural   economist,    even   then. 

Lage:  It  almost   seems  as   if   this  kind  of   research  belongs   more  in 

extension.       It's   very    practically    oriented. 

Kendrick:      Well,    it  probably  does  now,    with  a  redefinition  of  what 

extension's  mission  is,   and  with  more   emphasis  on   practical 
research   in  extension  than  exists  in  the  experiment   station.      But 
at   that   time,    that  kind  of  work  was   the   prerogative   of    the 
experiment   station,    and  it  was  protected  very   much  by   the 
experiment   station.      The  attitude,    even  when   I  was   in   the   early 
years  of    the  vice   presidency,    was   that  extension  was  incapable  of 
doing  research.      And  it  took  quite  a  while  to  neutralize   that 
attitude   and   the   feeling  that   Cooperative  Extension  didn't  have 
adequately   trained   personnel   to  pursue  research.      There  was   a 
certain  justification  in  that  attitude,    because   initially   the 
training  of  many  individual  members  of  extension  was   short   of 
Ph.D.    and  masters    degree   education.      They    didn't   have   an   exposure 
to  the  experimental  method,   and  statistical   analysis   of    the 
results  was  not  widely  practiced. 

So  there  was   some  justification  in   believing   that   the 
personnel    in  extension,    in  those   early   days,    was   not  a   trained 
research   staff.      But  as   the  educational   requirements  for 
appointments,    particularly   the   specialists,    was   increased  and 
ultimately  held  to  be   the    same  for  extension  specialists  as  it 


231 


Kendrick:      was  for  initial  appointments  in  the  experiment   station,    there  has 
been  less   criticism    of    that   differential   now,    and  I   think  quite 
rightly    so. 

Well,    the  next   attempt   to  reorganize  the  Giannini  Foundation 
so  it  could  stand  on  its   own  was  to   separate   the    directorship 
from    the   chair  at  Berkeley.      With  the  help  of   Chet  McCorkle,    who 
at   that   time  was  the  vice  president  of   the  University,    we  were 
able   to  generate  a  half  of   an  FTE  to  go  with  the  half-FTE  which 
the  Giannini  Foundation  resources  supported,    and  we   created  a  new 
FTE,    a  full-time-equivalent   position,    for  a  director.      We  went 
recruiting  for  a   director,    and  found  Del    [B.    Delworth]    Gardner  at 
Utah  State  University.      He  was  a   full   professor,    who  had  a   good 
reputation  in  the  field,   and  we   persuaded  Del   to   come  and  be   the 
director   of    the  Giannini   Foundation.      We  arranged  for   him   to  be 
appointed  to  the  Davis  Department   of  Agricultural  Economics,    but 
indicated  that   the  headquarters  of    the  Giannini  Foundation  would 
continue  to  exist  at  Berkeley,    due   to   the  fact   that   the  library 
was  there.      It   also   seemed  to  us  that  this  arrangement  would 
facilitate   cooperation  between  the  members  of   the   departments  at 
Davis   and  Berkeley.      Riverside    didn't   really   have   enough 
personnel   to   contribute  much  to   the  foundation's   program.      It  was 
always  a   source   of   disappointment  to  the  Riverside  administration 
that  Riverside  was  not  able   to  have  a   department   of  agricultural 
economics,    but   that   goes   back  prior   to  my   time.      I  think  it  was 
due  to  Harry  Wellman's  view    that  we   didn't  need  any  more 
[laughing]    agricultural   economists  in  the  University  of 
California.       I  may  be  jumping  to  a   conclusion   that's    unwarranted, 
but  I'm  not  so  sure  that  that's  off  the  mark. 

At  any  rate,    the  agricultural   economics  activity  was 
centered  on  the  Berkeley   and  Davis   campuses.      Del    continued  to 
function  as   the   director   of    the  Giannini   Foundation  and   did   a 
pretty    good  job   of    elevating  the  visibility   of    the  foundation. 
But   I   think  he  had,    over   the   course   of   his  five    or    six  years' 
tenure  in  that  role,    increasing  difficulties   persuading  his 
colleagues  on  the  faculty  to  address   some   of    the  more   practical 
problems   that  were   surfacing.      It  was  a  period  when  I  was  sort  of 
relaxed  about   the  foundation  because   I  had  a   director,    and  any 
inquiry    I   received  which   needed  attention  I  just   sent   on  to  the 
director  and  asked  if  he   could   take    care    of    it. 

Del   wound  up  taking  care  of    it,    but   he  wound  up  taking  care 
of  most  requests   pretty  much  on  his   own.     He  really  wasn't  able 
to  obtain  the  commitment   of   the  broad  array  of   the  agricultural 
economists,    who  existed  in  the  two   departments,    in  the   program. 
So  it  was  kind  of   a  frustrating  experience   for   him. 

When  Lowell  Lewis  came  to  my  staff,   we  were  still  having 
frustrations  with   the  Giannini   Foundation,    and  I   turned  the 
problem   over  to  him  as   the   director   of    the  experiment   station. 


232 


Kendrick:      He  and  the  executive   committee  subsequently   designed  another  way 
to  handle   the  Giannini   Foundation.      Del    resigned  from    the 
directorship  and  became   a  full   professor   of   agricultural 
economics   in  the  Davis   department. 

The  next   iteration  for  managing  the  Giannini  Foundation  was 
to  use  the  executive  committee,    chaired   by   the   director   of    the 
experiment   station.      So  for  a  while,    Lowell  Lewis  was  the 
director   of    this   governing  board  for    the  Giannini    Foundation. 
The  executive  group  consisted  of    the  chairs  of    the  departments  at 
Berkeley  and  Davis,    and   the   group  leader  in  extension  for   the 
extension  agricultural    economists,    plus  an  additional 
representative  from   the   two  departments,    and  there  may  have   teen 
an  additional    extension   component  also,     I'm  not   sure. 

Lage:  It   sounds  as   if    the  foundation  had  no  leverage   to  apply   to 

counteract    the   academic   direction. 


Kendrick:      I    think  you're  quite   right.       The   foundation    doesn't   have  any 

leverage   because   it   doesn't  have  very    much   money    for   programs  of 
research.      If   I  were  to   characterize  leverage  as  far  as   my   own 
responsibility    for   the  total   program  was  concerned,    I  would  say 
my  leverage  was  money  and  persuasion.      And  I  found   that  money   was 
the  biggest   persuader   that   I  had. 

Lage:  [laughs]      That   sums  it   up,    probably,    for  a  lot   of  your   programs. 

Kendrick:      Well,    I   think  that  is  very   true.      And  the  reason   I   say   that   is 
because,    as  we  will  subsequently   describe  in   some   of    these 
programs  within  the  experiment   station,    the  lack  of   leverage  was 
due  to  the  lack  of   flexible  money   to  allocate   to   people   to 
conduct   particular  programs   of   timely   importance. 

Lage:  So  if  you  had  flexible  money   to   support  research,   and  you   could 

define  a  particular  research   problem,    you  could  find  someone   to 
carry  out   the   research. 

Kendrick:      That's   right.      What  I  really  needed  was  a  big  fund  for   grant 

money,   where  we  could  define  the  terms  of   the  grant  in  such   a  way 
that  you  could  make    short-term   grants  of   one,    two,    three,    four, 
five  years,   and  at   the  end  of    that   period  you  would  have   the 
money    returned  to  you  and  you  could  redirect   it   to  something 
else. 

Lage:  Did  you  approach  the  agricultural   community   who  were  asking  for 

these    changes   in   the  foundation? 

Kendrick:      Yes,    I   suggested  that  we   should  establish   an  agricultural 

research  foundation  and  make   grants  from  it.      But    I  was   always 
reminded  that,    "Well,    the   state   already   appropriates   sixty 
million   dollars  to  you.      Why   can't  you  find  flexibility   in   that 


233 


Kendrick:      sixty   million   dollars?"      I'd    go   through   the    standard  explanation. 
"Yes,     I   have  all   that  money,    but   I   don't  have  any   control    over 
most  of   it   because  it's   already  supporting  people  who  have   tenure 
and  who  are  regular  members   of    the  faculty.      And  I  also  have  an 
agricultural   field   station  that   I   could   close,    but    that    doesn't 
seem    the  way   to  manage   a   program.      So  I'm  left  with  less  than  a 
million   dollars   of   flexible  money."     These  are   the   kinds    of 
things  you  have  to  consider  when  you're  trying  to  administer   a 
program  and  keep  your  resources   flexible  enough   so   that  you   can 
direct   them    to  current   problems. 

Well,    the  Giannini   Foundation,    as   I   understand  it   to  now 
operate — it  was  when  I  left  office — has  an  executive   committee, 
but   instead  of    the  director   of    the  experiment   station  being  the 
chair,   they  elect  a  chair.     Or,  if  they  don't  elect  a  chair,  it 
alternates   periodically  between  the  chairman  of   the  department   of 
Berkeley  and   the   chairman  of    the   department  at   Davis.      The 
committee  administers   the  program   of   the  Giannini  Library.      They 
have  a  few  fellowships  that  they  can   grant  from   the  fund,    and 
they   make   research   grants   to  applicants  for   particular  kinds   of 
defined  programs.      So  the  Giannini  Foundation,   with  what  money   it 
does   now    have   that's   flexible,     operates  as  a   granting  agency. 

Lage:  And  are  they  committed  to  try  to   grant  research  funds  for   these 

more  practical  problems,    or — ? 

Kendrick:      I  think  they  tend  to   grant   them  into   short-term   definable 

programs   that  lead  into  what  the  executive  committee  regards  as 
important  current  economic  issues  as  far  as  agriculture  is 
concerned. 


Agricultural    Issues  Center 


The   Idea  and  the  Funding  ## 


Kendrick:      Since  we're   talking  about   the  Giannini   Foundation,    let  me   slip 

over   into   the  Agricultural    Issues  Center.      One   might   say,    "You've 
got   the  Giannini   Foundation,   why   do  you  need  an  Agricultural 
Issues    Center?" 


This  organized  research   unit  is  in  the  experiment   station, 
and  it   includes  extension,    so  it's   not  just   exclusively 
experiment   station  personnel.      It  had  its  origin  at  one   of    my 
retreats  with   the  Executive  Bulls.      I'll  explain  what   the 
Executive  Bulls  is.      It   is  an  informal    organization  that  meets 
twice  a  year,    for  a   twenty-four  hour   period,    composed   of 
representatives  of   agricultural    enterprises,    widely   diversified 


234 


Kendrick:      as  far  as   the  activities  are   concerned.      The  representatives  who 
are  members   of    the  Bulls  are  the  senior  managers  of   the 
activities.      What   the   group   does  is  hold  a  bull    session,    so  hence 
the   name   Executive  Bulls. 

I  was  kind  of    shocked  to  be   included  in  an  organization 
called   the  Executive  Bulls   because   I   thought  it   pursued    [laughs] 
other   kinds   of   activities.      But.    nevertheless,    it   is  a   group  that 
I  became  quite  fond  of,    and  it  was  an  important    source  for  me   in 
assessing  what   the  current  problems  affecting  the  agriculture 
enterprises  in   California  were. 

Well,    in  one   of    these   sessions,    I  roomed  with  an  executive 
from   the  Kellogg   Foundation.      The  Kellogg   Foundation  made    grants 
to  institutions  to  pursue   particular  kinds   of    problems,    such   as 
programs  to  improve  and  expand  computer  use  in  agriculture   or 
programs  to  improve   the   transfer  of    technology   to  practical    use. 
These  are  mere  examples  of   a  wide  variety   of   programs   the   Kellogg 
Foundation  has    supported  over   the  years  of    its  existence. 

Well,    this  representative   of   the  Kellogg   Foundation  and   I 
were  discussing  Kellogg's   program,    and  he  indicated  to  me   that 
they  were  interested  in  fostering   the   development   of   regional 
centers  addressing  policy    matters  affecting  agriculture.      And 
that   they  had  in  mind   setting  up  four  regional    centers  and  a 
national   center   to  study   policy    matters.      I   thought   to  myself, 
"Well,    if   Kellogg  is   going  to  fund  regional    centers   to   study 
policy    issues,    I'm  certainly   going  to  go   after   one   for   the   West 
located  in   California."     In  order   to  meet   the   requirements    of    the 
grant.    I  came  home  and  appointed  a  committee  to  design  a  program 
and  a  budget.      The   composition  of    the   committee  included 
representatives  of    several   different   disciplines,    but   it  had 
strong  representation  from   the  agricultural   economists.      I   also 
included  representatives  from    Stanford  and  Santa  Clara — because 
if  we  were   going  to  have  a  regional   center,    we  had  to  make   sure 
that  we  were  including  more  than  just  Berkeley  or  the  Davis 
campus  in  this   program.      Also,    on  that   initial    study   committee 
was  a   representative  from   the  business  world,    the  former  vice 
president  for  agricultural   affairs  for   the  Bank   of   America. 

Chairing  that  committee  was  Alex  McCalla,    a  professor   of 
agricultural  economics  at  Davis,   who  was  one   of   my  administrative 
supporters   during  the  period  when  he  was   the  dean  of   the  College 
of  Agricultural   and  Environmental   Sciences  at   Davis,   and   also  an 
associate   director   of    the  experiment   station.      Alex  was  a  very 
good  chair  who  also  was  very   good  at    conceptualizing   things.      He 
was  a   good  builder.      He  was  just   the  right  kind  of   a  chair   to  put 
in   charge    of    developing   that    concept. 

Lage:  Was   this   done  without   grants,    yet,    from   the  Kellogg  Foundation? 


235 


Kendrick:      Yes,    that's   true.      It  was   done  with  our   own  resources. 

The  notion  that   I   tried  to  transmit   to  the  steering 
committee  was  that   I  wanted  a   program   that  was  broader  than 
economics.      I   thought   that   the  policy    matters  affecting  the 
future   of    California's  agriculture   dealt  with  toxics,    dealt  with 
environmental    issues,    dealt  with  labor  issues,    dealt  with 
marketing  issues.      In  addition,    I   could   see   that   the   genetic 
engineering  matters  were  coming  to  the  front,    and  those  were 
policy   issues   also.      So   there  were  economic  issues,    as  far  as 
marketing  and  foreign   policy   and  the  like,    but   there  were  also 
some  other  issues   that  weren't   based   primarily   on  economic 
concerns. 


Lage: 


Kendrick: 


What   date   do  you  have   for   this? 
started? 


Do  you  recall  when  this  all 


Well,    the  center   is  about   three  years  old,    and   it  was  about   1983 
that  we   began  talking   seriously  about   it.     And   the  idea  was  for 
the  committee   to  develop  a   grant   proposal    to  send  to  Kellogg. 

Well,    they  worked  very  well  and  put  together  a  marvelous 
program    that   I   thought  was  just  what  we  needed.      Kellogg,    in  the 
meantime,    decided  that  they  would  like  to  start   slower   than 
originally   planned.       So  they   established  a  national   center   to  see 
how   that  would  operate  before   they  entertained  any   proposal   for 
regional   centers.      The  national   center  was  located  in  Washington, 
D.C.,    at   Resources   for    the    Future — the   organization   that 
President  Hitch  headed  up  briefly,    when  he  terminated  his 
presidency  at   the  University    of    California. 

At  Resources  for   the  Future,    they    found  Ken  Farrell,    who  was 
a  fellow   of  Resources  for   the   Future,    and  he   became   the   director 
of    the   national    Center   for  Agricultural    and  Food  Policy   Research. 
So   that's  where   the  Kellogg   grant  wound  up,    at   a   national    center. 

Meanwhile,   having  charged  up  this  committee — and  they 
produced  such  a  good  product — I   decided   that    I  wanted  to   get   some 
funding  into  it.      So  I  put  it  in  the  asking  budget  for  '84,   I 
think  it  was,   at   a  half-million   dollars,   in  order  to   get  it   off 
the   ground  and   get  it   started.       I  expected  the  agricultural 
industry   representatives   of   California  to   say,    "Now,    finally   he's 
doing  something  useful    for  us,"  and  it  would  have  a  lot   of 
support  in  the  legislature,   and  it  would   go   through  with  no 
trouble. 

It   was  David  Gardner's  first  year  as   president,    his  first 
budget.      1984.      He   thought  it  was  a   great  idea,    too.      As   a  matter 
of    fact,    he   spoke   in  support  of    it  when  he  was  talking  to 
agriculture   groups.      He  was  one   of   my   best  lobbyists,    in  a   sense. 
So   I   felt   pretty    good  about    it  and  was  very    surprised  to  find 


236 


Kendrick:  less  than  enthusiastic  interest  among  California's  organized 
agriculture  in  the  University's  establishing  an  agricultural 
policy  research  and  study  center. 

Lage:  They   didn't   see   it  related  to  their  immediate  needs? 

Kendrick:      I  ultimately  found  out  what  the   problem  was.      Commercial 

agriculture  does  not   trust  faculty   to  meddle  with  policies  that 
might  affect  their  economic  well-being.      There  had  just   been 
published  about   that  time  a  paper  that  got  a  lot  of  publicity 
written  by  a  member  of   the  faculty — not  in  agriculture — from 
Berkeley,    and  co-authored  by   another   person  from  UCLA,    suggesting 
that  the   citizens   of  Los  Angeles  were   subsidizing   the 
agricultural   enterprises   in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley   to  the 
detriment   of    the   cost   of  water   delivered  to  Los  Angeles.      Now. 
that's   a   long  and   complicated   story,    and  it's   full    of    debate. 
The  assumptions  that   people  make  for   their   points   of  view   are   not 
necessarily   congruent,    but   the   topic  makes  alarming  headlines, 
when  one  reads  about  the   so-called  unfairness  of   the  water 
distribution  and  costs  associated  with  agriculture  in  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley  versus    southern   California. 

That  had  no   sooner   appeared  in  print   than  my   phone  began  to 
ring,   asking  me  how    I  would  let    people   publish  such  nonsense. 
Well,    it  was  sort  of   "here  we  go  again."      [laughter]      Jim 
Kendrick  does  not   tell    the  faculty  what   they   can  and   cannot 
publish.      But   I  would  point   out   to  these   complaining  individuals 
that   if  we'd  had  something  like  an  agricultural   policy   center 
with  some  kind  of   a  review   policy   in  place,    that  irresponsible 
claims  would  be  at  least  reduced  to  a  minimum   because  we'd  have  a 
review   process  that  made   sure  that  claims  and  assumptions  and 
facts  were  indeed  supportable,    and  not  just   somebody's   idea.      But 
that   point,    again,    was  lost. 

Lage:  I   can   see  you  try  to  turn  most   everything  to  your  advantage. 

Kendrick:      Well,     I   try.       [laughter]      But    I   guess   that's  the  politics   of    the 
situation. 

Anyway,    the  half-million-dollar  request   got  pruned  to  a 
$250,000   request   before  it   got   into   the    governor's    budget,    and 
that  was  just  an  economy   measure.      Then  it  worked  its  way   through 
the  legislature,  and  even  this  meager   $250,000,   which  would  have 
been  quite  helpful,    was  having  problems   because   agriculture's 
representatives  weren't   rushing  forward   to    say,     "It's   a    great 
thing,    you've   got    to   support   it."     And   if   we   couldn't   get    the 
agriculture   people  to  support  it,    you   can  be   certain   that   the 
legislature's  Ways  and  Means  Committee  wasn't   going  to  go  out   of 
their  way  to  just   give   the  University   extra  money    that 
agriculture  thought   that   they    didn't  need  anyway.      Commercial 


237 


Kendrick:      agriculture  was   certainly  leery   of    the  University   developing 

agricultural   policy,    which   they   thought  was  the  purpose   of   the 
proposed  center. 

So,    we   spent  a  lot   of    time   in  Sacramento  in  support  of   this, 
and  I  wrote  an  editorial   in  the   California  Agriculture   suggesting 
that   studying  policy   was   different   than  advocating  policy  or 
supporting  particular  actions;   that   the  University  was   the   proper 
vehicle   to  analyze   policy   options   so   that  agriculture  would  have 
some  knowledge   of  what  their  alternatives  were  and  what  their 
options  were.      But   that   distinction  was   somewhat   obscured.      In 
social   issues,    it's  very   difficult  to   separate    study   and   research 
of   policy   matters  from    the   perception  of   advocating  one   position 
over   others.      In  technical  matters,   we,    of   course,    advocate   all 
kinds   of   policies — we  advocate  certain  actions  because   they   would 
increase  yields   or   control   more   pests   and   diseases. 

In  studying  policy    matters,   you  tread  very   lightly   in  taking 
advocacy   positions   because  you're   dealing  with   political   and 
emotional    subjects,    and  the  University's  faculty   and  staff   are 
not    policy-makers.      They    shouldn't    be.      But   that's   a  fine  line   to 
walk,    and  we  have  members  of   the  institution  who  don't  understand 
that  fine  line.      They  find   themselves  advocating  certain  kinds   of 
policy — the   small   farm  group,    for  instance,    with  their  interest 
in  the  160-acre  limitation,   had  some  rather   strong  statements 
made    about   that.      So  it's  an  advocacy   role   that  makes  life 
difficult  for   someone  who's    trying   to    be   objective. 

I   was   going  to  say   how    this   got  resolved.      It  was  suggested 
that   if  we   take   "policy"  out   of   the    title,    and   change   "policy"  to 
"issues,"  and  it   became   an  agricultural    issues  research   and   study 
center,    that  we  would  not  have  as  much   problem. 

Lage:  Now,    who  suggested  that? 

Kendrick:      They   were  the  representatives  of   commercial   agriculture,    the 

Sacramento  lobbyists.      So,    I    said,    "That's   no    great    problem,     I'm 
just    stubborn  enough   to  try   and  educate   people   that  we're  not 
policy   advocates,    we're   policy   researchers   but    I'm   also  a 
pragmatist,    and  I  would  like    the  center  because   I   think  it's 
needed  and   I   think  it   can  make  a   significant   contribution,    so   if 
you   think   it    takes   'issues'    rather    than  'policy'    in  the   title   to 
get   this   thing  off   the   dead   center,     I'll    go   along  with  it."      So 
it  ultimately  became   the  Agricultural    Issues   Center.      And  it 
looked  like  it  was   going  to   get  through  with  no  more   problems,    at 
its  quarter    of   a  million  dollar  budget  level. 

In  an  attempt  to  reassure  the  agricultural   community   that  we 
were  not   going  to  be   a   threat   to  their  prerogative  to  determine 
policies  affecting  their  own  welfare,    we  hired  Dick  Lyng  to 
survey   a   select   number   of   California's  agricultural   leaders. 


238 


Kendrick:      This  was  just   prior  to  his   being  appointed   secretary   of 
agriculture  for   the  U.S.    and  while  he  was  working  out    of 
Washington,    B.C.,    as   a    consultant.      He  had   the    confidence    of 
practically   all   of    California's  agricultural   leaders,    and  we 
hoped  that  his   intervention  on  our   behalf  would  help  in   gaining 
their  support.      Dick  also  asked  these  leaders  for  ideas 
concerning  issues   they   felt   important   to   study.      In  the  end  he 
gave  us  a  written  report   on  the  results  of   his  survey  with 
suggestions  for  the  advisory   board  and  issues  which  needed 
attention.       I  believe   that  his  role  in  the  process  of   gaining 
political   support  for   the   center  was  very   positive.      At  any    rate, 
he  was   convinced  of    the  value   of    having  a   center   to  study  these 
agricultural   issues  and  he   supported  it  enthusiastically. 

Just  when  it  appeared  that  we  had  successfully  countered  all 
of   the   criticism  and  would   get   the   center  funded  at    $250,000,    the 
budget   got  whacked  again  in  a  mark-up  session  in  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee,    because  a  lot  of  issues  were  being  heard 
affecting  the  University's   total   program.      The  legislative 
analyst  had  given  a  negative  recommendation  of    the  issues    center, 
on  the  basis   that,    although   it  was  a  good  program  and  there  was 
nothing  wrong  with  its   conceptualization  and  its   need,    it  was 
something  that  ought   to  be   funded  by   the  agricultural    interests 
themselves.       I'd   gone   that  route,    and   I    didn't   really   want 
agricultural    interests  funding  this   center  because   I  wanted  it 
free  and  unencumbered  from  any  kind   of   specific  influence. 

I  think  we  were  going  to  be  able  to  beat  that  criticism,    but 
the  legislative  analyst  was  losing  nearly   all    of   his 
recommendations   concerning  other   issues   in  the  University's 
budget,    and   the  University's   position  was   being  sustained   in 
almost  all   of    them.      They   came   to  the  Ag  Issues   Center,    and  the 
comment  from  one   the  legislators  was,    "Well,   maybe  we   can  let   the 
legislative  analyst  win  one  of    them."      [laughter]      So  they   took  a 
hundred  and  ten  thousand  dollars   off   of   it,    and   I  wound  up  with 
$140,000. 

Lage:  Not   too  much   to  get   something   going. 

Kendrick:      It  was  almost   down  to  the  point  where  I   considered   briefly 

saying,    "Well,    if   it   doesn't   seem    that   important,    we  won't   take 
the  money."     The  notion   I  had  was   that   if  you   give   in   completely, 
you  create  the  attitude   that,    "Well,    they'll  get  along  with 
whatever  we  give   them."     It   really  kind   of    emasculated  what   the 
original   concept   of   how  we  would  approach   that  program — but  we 
decided  we'd  swallow   our   pride  and   take   the   $140,000  and  do  with 
it  what  we   could,    and  demonstrate   that  we  had  a   program   of  value. 
We  hoped  to  augment  subsequent   budgets   through   grants  or   go   back 
at   them   with  another  request.      The  last  act   that   I   created  in  the 
budget  just  before   I   retired  was   to   put   in  a  request   for  another 


239 


Kendrick:  hundred  thousand  dollars  to  augment  that  original  appropriation. 
That  got  lost — it  emerged  and  stayed  in  the  University's  budget, 
bat  it  got  lost  in  the  legislative  battle  again. 


Choosing  a   Diverse  Advisory  Board 


Lage  :  So   there   isn't  a   strong  commitment — or   an  understanding  of    it. 

Kendrick:      I   think  the    center  and  its   program   are   gaining  a  reputation  for 
usefulness  and  visibility.      Like   all   such   programs   as   they    get 
started,    they  have  to   demonstrate   their  worth  and   the   usefulness 
of    their  contributions.      Hal    Carter,    a   professor   of   agricultural 
economics  at   the  Davis    campus,    is   the    director.      The   center  was 
designed  to  have  an  external    advisory   board  to  help   guide   the 
direction  of    the   program.      I   decided   that   I  would  appoint   that 
board  so  the  vice   president   could  maintain  some  involvement  with 
the   center.      The  board  was   composed  of    twelve  members.      It  has   a 
representative  from   labor,    and  the  consumers,    and  from   banking, 
and  water  interests,    the   processing  industry,   and  farming 
operations.      As  a  matter   of   fact,    the  legislation  that  authorized 
the  establishment   of    this   center   defined  the   broad  areas   of 
representation  which    should  appear  on  that  board. 

Lage:  Was   that   based  on  your   design? 

Kendrick:      It  was   based  on  material   we  put   into  the  legislation.      And  the 
board  is   of   high  quality. 

Lage:  Is   there   such   a  thing  as   "the"  water   interests? 

Kendrick:      No,    there  isn't.       I  had  fun  trying  to  find   the   kinds    of    people 

who  I   thought  would  bring  an  objective,    open  point  of  view   to  the 
board.      I   can't  recall   offhand   the   names   of   the   people  who  were 
on  the  board — you  can  probably   augment   that  in  due   course.      But 
the  water  interests    [laughs]    are  at  least  represented  on  the 
board  by   an  interesting  person,    who  is   an  attorney,    the   senior 
attorney   of   a  firm  in  Riverside.      The  firm  in  Riverside  is  Best, 
Best,    and  Krieger,    and  the  attorney    is  Arthur  Littleworth. 

Arthur  Littleworth  served  on  the  ad-hoc  water   commission 
appointed  by  Governor  Jerry  Brown  to  study   the  water  problems  of 
California.      Art  has  become  very   knowledgeable  in  water   policy 
and  water  law.      He   represents  water  districts  in  some  of   the 
legal    claims,    but   over  and  above   that,    I've   talked  with  Art  a 
number   of   times  about  water  and  water  problems  in  the  state  of 
California.     He  has   in  my  judgment  a  very   good  understanding  of 


240 


Kendrick:      the  fundamental   problems  of   distribution  and   the  value   of 

protecting  environmental   qualities  and  the  like,    and  responding 
to   the   domestic   needs  as  well. 

The   interesting   thing  about   Art's   relationship  with   the 
Kendrick  family  is  that  he  was   president   of    the   Riverside   City 
School   Board,    when  Evelyn  was  a  member,    and  he  and  Evelyn  were 
the  two  who  had  to  run  for   the  re-election  in  1966.      So  it  was   a 
personal   link,    as  well   as  one   that   I   felt  would  bring  a   lot   of 
quality  to  a   board  of    this  nature  and  would   also   get    southern 
California  represented  on  the  board.      He  has  taken  a  deep 
interest   in   the    center. 

The  chairman  of    the  board  is  Bill  Allewelt,    a  retired  chief 
executive   officer  of   Tri-Valley,    the  large  food  processor — 
canning  tomatoes  and  peaches,    mostly   fruits,    some  vegetables. 
But  tomato   canning  was  the   big  backbone   of    the  Tri-Valley 
operation.       Bill   is  a   graduate   of    the  University   of    California  at 
Davis,    in  agricultural   economics.      He  is   a  member   of   the 
Executive  Bulls   and  a   demonstrated  successful   agricultural 
manager,    one  very  dedicated  to   the  mission  of   the  University   of 
California  and  knowledgeable  about   agriculture,    whom    I've   stayed 
in  touch  with   regularly. 

The  banker  who   I  appointed  to   the  board  is   president   of   the 
Bank  of   Stockton,    Robert  Eberhardt,    also   a  regent   of   the 
University   of    the  Pacific,    and  a   person  quite  knowledgeable  about 
agriculture  financing.      He  had   served  on   the   banking  commission 
for   the   state   of    California. 

The  labor   representative  who   I   asked   to  serve  was  at   the 
time   chairman  of   the  Agricultural  Labor  Relations  Board,    Jyrl 
James- Ma ssengale.      She  is  a  lawyer  with  a  law   firm   in  southern 
California  and  had  represented  management  in  some  instances   in 
dealing  with  labor- management   problems.      She  was  appointed  by 
Deukmejian  as   chair   of   the  Agricultural  Labor   Relations   Board. 
She's   a   black  lady   and  was   trying  to  bring  peace   and  objectivity 
to  the  Agricultural  Labor  Relations  Board,   but    she   of   course  was 
not   perceived  by   the  Cesar  Chavez    group  as  being  sympathetic  tc 
their   point   of  view.      She  has   subsequently   resigned  from   that 
position,    but    she  remains  on  the  Agricultural    Issues  Center 
board. 

The  environmental   and  consumer   interests  were  represented  by 
Lois   Salisbury,    from   Public  Advocates  law   firm   in  San   Francisco. 
I  was   not   able   to  get  well  acquainted  with  Lois  because   she  was 
busy  having  a  youngster  at   the   time  we  were   beginning  to  meet 
with   the  board,    and  she  was   unavailable   for   those   first   meetings. 
She   brings  a   point   of  view    that's  well    thought   out,    but   it's 
certainly   contrary    to  seme   of    the  traditional   agricultural 


241 


Kendrick:     viewpoints.     Both  Hal    Carter  and   I  felt    she  would   be   a  valuable 
addition  to  the  board  because   she  could  at  least  keep  the 
traditional    agriculturalists   on   their   toes. 

In  addition.    I  asked  Henry   Schacht,    who  writes  a  column 
about  agriculture  which   appears  regularly   in  the   San  Francisco 
Chronicle,    if   he  would  serve   on  the  board,    and  he  agreed  to  do 
so.      The   dairy   interests  were  represented  by  a   dairyman  from   the 
Modesto   area,    Arnold  Barcellos. 


Lage:  Now,    what  would  be   the  role   of    the  board  of   a  group  like    that? 

Kendrick:      Well,    they're  advisory  and   they  attempt  to  keep   the   program   of 
the   center  relevant   to  issues  that  were  important  to  the  future 
of    California   agriculture. 

Lage:  So   they  work  with   the  director  — 

Kendrick:      They  work  with   the    director  — 
Lage:  —  to  define   the   problems  — 

Kendrick:      Yes.      And  the  vice    president  meets  with  them.      Another  member  of 
the  board  is   the   owner   of   a  large  successfully  operated  vegetable 
and  fruit   produce   firm   in  southern  California,    Howard  Marguleas, 
the   chief  executive   officer   of   Sundesert.      His   company   markets 
dates,    citrus,    tomatoes,    watermelons,    and  grapes.      Howard  is  a 
very  successful   entrepreneur  in  agriculture.      Henry  Voss, 
president   of    the  California  Farm  Bureau  Federation,    and  Gray  don 
Nichols,  a  successful   farmer  in  the   San  Joaquin  Valley  and  in  the 
Sacramento  Delta  region,    are  also  members   of    the  advisory   board. 
So  agriculture  is  well   represented  on  the   board.      I   think  the 
board  is   composed  of   significant   people,    who  represent  an  array 
of  activities    that    characterize    California's   agricultural 
enterprises   and   organizations   interested   in  agriculture. 

Lage:  Just  one  comment  to  keep  you  on  your   toes  here:      I  would   guess 

that   the   person  you  had  to  represent  labor   really   wouldn't  be 
somebody  very  well  accepted  by  agricultural  labor  —  not  just   Cesar 
Chavez,    but    in   general. 

Kendrick:      I   had  problems   seeking  that  labor  representative,    and  I    probably 
could   be  questioned  on  why   I   didn't    get   organized  labor   on   the 
board,    but    I   did  not  want   to  create  an  environment  in  which  I  had 
a   battle  on   my  hands  at   every  meeting. 

Lage:  But  what  about   somebody   like  Harold  Gilliam,    whom  you  had  as 

representative  of   the  environmental  movement   on  another   board, 
who  is  not  a  leader   of   an  environmental   group  necessarily,    but 


242 


Lage:  somebody  very  knowledgeable  and  sympathetic  to  the  environmental 

movement.      Wouldn't   there  be   a   counterpart  for   the  labor 
movement? 

Kendrick:      Well,    that's  where  I   perceived  Ms.   James-Massengale  to  be  very 
knowledgeable  about  labor  laws.      It  wasn't   because   she  happened 
to  represent   management   on  some  issues  in  the  National  Labor 
Relations  activities   that   I   chose  her.      She  knew   a  lot  about 
labor,    labor  law,    and  labor   organizations.      A  lawyer   can 
represent  one   side  or   the  other,  and   I  was  anxious  to  have 
labor's  viewpoint   and  labor's   concerns   expressed   on  the   board, 
but  I  didn't  want  to   create  a   board  in  which   I  had   my   traditional 
agriculturists   sitting  glaring  at   the  labor   representative  and 
never  really  addressing  the  issue.      It  just   becomes  an  argument. 
I   chose  very   carefully   to  try   and   get   the  viewpoints  on  the  table 
without   polarizing   the  individuals   because   they   don't  like    one 
another.      And  that  is  not   easy   to  do   in  agricultural   labor 
relations,    because   it's   a  very    emotional    issue.      Water's   another 
one,    and  I   chose,    I   thought,    wisely   there  because   I  chose  a  known 
quantity,    a  person  who  was  accustomed  to  arbitration,    and 
accustomed  to  negotiation,    accustomed  to  listening  to  an  opposing 
point  of  view  and  working  his  way   objectively   through  an  analysis 
of    all    the  issues. 

That's  not  always   possible   to  do   in  agricultural    matters 
because  there  are  some  strongly  held  views  on  one   side   or 
another.      When  one  refers   to  the  agricultural    industry   of 
California,    it  really   doesn't    describe    the  agricultural 
enterprise    of    California.       It's   not   a   unified  industry   such   as 
you  find  in  the  automotive  industry   producing  more   or  less   a 
single   product.      It   is  an  amalgamation  of   anarchies    [laughter], 
in  that   everyone  is  for   themselves.      The   citrus    grower   isn't 
particularly   concerned  about  what  happens  to  the  lettuce   grower — 
except  if  it   becomes  a   common  labor  issue.      Then  they   go  marching 
together.      But    if   it's  a  marketing  issue,    let   the  citrus   people 
take   care    of    themselves. 


Lage : 


So   it  is  not   an  industry    in  the  usual    sense   of    the  word, 
that  is   defined  with  uniform   goals.      Even  water   separates   them, 
the  northerners  and  the  southerners.      About   the  only   thing   I   know 
that   unifies  agriculture  at   all   are   labor  and   taxes. 

And   that's   two  of    their  big  issues.       I   noticed  in  those   farm 
magazines   that   they  focus  on  labor  and   taxes. 


Kendrick:     Yes.      That's  right. 

Lage:  I   noticed  that  you  appointed  a   couple   of   women  to  this   board. 

Was   that  a  new   step  for   the  agricultural    division? 


243 


Kendrick:      No,    I  had  previous  advisory   committees  with  women  serving  on 

them.      I  wanted  minorities  as  well  as  women  represented  on  this 
board.      The  last   person.   I  appointed  to   the   board  is  an  executive 
from    Sun  Diamond — the  Sun  Diamond  public  affairs  officer,    Richard 
Douglas,    who  had  spent   time  in  the  USDA  as   one   of   Dick  Lyng's 
staff   aides.       He's  a  black  agricultural    economist.      I   think  we 
did  pretty  well   getting  women,    minorities,    and  the  traditional 
and  nontraditional    agricultural   activities  represented  on  a  board 
that    doesn't  have  very  many   positions  to  fill.      I  left    my 
successor  with  one  vacancy   on  the  board.      It  was   intended  that 
each  member  have  a  three-year  term  with  reappointments   permitted. 
In  order   to  start   that   sequence   and  create  an  overlap  of 
membership,  we   determined  one,    two,   and  three— year  appointments 
by    lot   for    each   of    these   first   appointees. 

That   center  was  my  last   creative  act  as  far  as   trying  to   do 
something  for   the  future  of    the  program   in  research  and 
extension.      I  would   guess   that   the  jury   is  out   on  whether   or  not 
that   is    going   to  take.      They   don't  have  a  lot   of    money    to  operate 
on  yet.       It  has    good  leadership.       Its   board  is   enthusiastic  and 
very   supportive;    they   see   the  need  for   the  program,    and  they   are 
people  who  are  not  without   influence. 


Making  the  West  a  Force   in  Agricultural    Policy 


Kendrick:      The  other  motive   I  had  in  trying  to   get  an  issues    center 

established  concerns  national    issues.      The  West   does  not   get  well 
considered  in  national   agricultural   policy.      It  is   perceived   to 
be   sort  of   specialty- crop  agriculture;    it  has  many   commodities 
and  crops  that   get  into  commerce,    and   therefore  when  you  line   up 
the  growers  of  vegetables  or  fruits  and  nuts  against  the  Midwest 
corn   growers   or   soy   bean  farmers,    they   are  easily  outnumbered. 
They    don't   have   near   the  influence   in  national   policies  because 
agriculture   policies  are   dominated  by   corn,    wheat,    soy   beans, 
beef,    and   dairy    interests.      Irrigated  agriculture,    or   range 
agriculture,    is   sort   of   regarded  as  western  agriculture,    and  it 
can  take   care  of    itself,    or   it   gets  traded  off   in  various 
options. 

Economists  and  spokespersons  for   agricultural   policy  are 
more  apt  to  emerge  from  the  midwestern  or  eastern  universities 
such   as   Maryland,    Georgetown,    Harvard,    Iowa  State,    Michigan 
State,    or  Minnesota.      And  while  we  have  a  number   of  western 
people  who   participate  in  specific  events — we  have  had  a  few   who 
served  on  the   President's   Council    of  Economic  Advisors   as 
agricultural    representatives — the  West   doesn't  have  a  very   strong 
voice  when  these  policy  matters  are   discussed  at   the   national 
level.       We   haven't   had  an  organization  that  has  been  identified 


244 


Kendrick:     with  paying  particular  attention  to   these   national    or 

international    issues.      And  that's  what   I   had  in  mind  in  trying  to 
get  an  Agricultural    Issues   Study  and  Research   Center   established 
with  a  great   deal    of   visibility,    so  that  eventually  a   person  or   a 
group  or  a  committee  addressing  national   agricultural   issues 
might  automatically  think,    "Well,    have  we  heard  from   that  western 
agricultural   issues   center?      What  is   their  point   of  view   relative 
to  this  matter  or  that  matter?" 

Lage:  You'd  think  that  argument  would  appeal   both  to   the  agriculture 

community   here  and  to  the  legislature. 

Kendrick:      Well,    it    does.      But  agriculture  is  not   sure   that   they  want  an 
academic  voice.      They   want   their  own  voice,    and  the  history  of 
this  center  working  with  commercial  agriculture  is  too  recent  for 
them   to  see  what   the  product   of    an  agricultural   issues  center   is 
vis-a-vis   their   needs.      And  I   think  it's    going  to   take  years   to 
work   that    thing  through.      You   don't    create   a   reputation   overnight. 

Lage:  No,    that's   right.      This  is   a  long-term — 

Kendrick:      So  I'm  not   disappointed  with  what  we've  got  going  here;    I   think 
if  it   serves  any  usefulness  at   all.    it  will   grow   and   be 
supported.      If    it   doesn't,    it  will   disappear  and  be   a  memory. 

But  the  other   thing  going  for  it  is   that   the  former   director 
of    the  National    Center  for  Agricultural    and  Food  Policy    is  Ken 
Farrell,    who  is  now    the  vice   president   of   the  University's 
agricultural   program.      I'm   sure  that  wasn't  a   primary    reason  why 
he  was  appointed  my   successor,    but  it   certainly   doesn't  hurt 
having  his   interest  and  his  former   experience   in  the  national 
center  brought   to   bear   to   oversee   this  regional    center.      So    I 
feel   quite  good  about   this  as  a   program.      This   is   an  example   of 
an  activity  that   I  would  never  have   been  able   to   put   together  as 
an  inexperienced,    young  administrator   in  the  early  stages  of   my 
responsibility.      I  had  to   do  a  lot    of   politicking.       It's  a   good 
example  of   how    important  external  community  relationships  and 
internal  politics  within  the  University   are  in  order   to 
accomplish    something  in  the  University.      If   I   hadn't   been  able   to 
get   this   item  in  the   President's   budget   in  the  first    place,    it 
wouldn't    have   gone   anywhere. 


Developing  Support  for  Agriculture  in  an  Urban  Society 


Lage: 


Was   it  a   struggle   to  get   it   in  the  budget? 


Kendrick:      No,    it  wasn't.      The   President — David  Gardner—  saw    this  as  a 
useful    contribution  almost   immediately. 


245 


Lage:  He   sounds  very   supportive   of    the  agriculture    division. 

Kendrick:      Yes,    he  is. 

Lage:  Is  there   something  in  his  background  that  makes  him  sympathetic? 

Kendrick:      He  jokingly  refers  to   the  fact   that  he  had   some   early   exposure   to 
practical    agriculture  on  an  uncle's   ranch,    or  farm,    in  Montana,    I 
think  it  was.     He  quickly   perceived   that   that  was  not   a  future 
that  he  wanted  to  be   engaged  in;    it  was  hard  work  and  long  hours 
[laughing],    and   the  economic  return  wasn't  very   great.       So  he, 
like   most   of   us,    is   of   an  age   to  have  had   grandparents  or   parents 
in   some   kind   of  agricultural   enterprise.      But   that  experience  is 
fast   disappearing;  most   of    the  people   presently   in  their  thirties 
and  forties  have  no  vivid  memory   of  any  kind   of   agricultural 
association.       I    didn't   grow   up  on  a  farm;    I'm  a   product    of   an 
academic  family,    but  both  of   my   parents  were  raised  on  farms,    and 
Evelyn  was   raised  on  a   farm.      Her  parents  were  farmers,    and  you 
get   back  one   generation  from  mine,   and  almost  everybody  had  some 
kind  of   an  agricultural   association.      The  younger  members   of 
today's   society    do  not  have    the   understanding   of   agriculture's 
contribution  to  their  well-being  and  value   system   that  we  have 
traditionally   had   in  our    population. 

And   that's   another   factor   in  the  difficulties  of   operating 
an  agriculture-supporting  enterprise  in  the   present   urban- 
dominated  society   where  the  legislature  is  an  expression  of   urban 
society.       It's   difficult  to   convince    people    that    some 
agricultural   programs  or   problems  are  as  important  as  AIDS   or 
poverty  or  homelessness — and  I  would  be   presumptuous  to  assume 
that   some  of    them   are  as  important.      I  would  say   no,    they're  not 
as  important  as  some   of  those  excruciating  problems  associated 
with  joblessness  and  job  displacements,    and  the  like.      You  have 
to  manage  these  affairs  so  that   they  fit  into  a  total    program   in 
a   relatively  compatible  way,    not  to  the  exclusion  of   somebody 
else's  major   problem.      Crime  in  the   street,    the   drug  scene  and   all 
the  rest   of    it  are  issues  that   people  in  the  legislature  have   to 
wrestle  with.      Do  you  put  your  money  here,    or   there?      Do  you  put 
it   in  the  Agricultural    Issues   Center   or   do  you  put   it  in  prisons? 
[laughs] 

Unless  you're  willing  to  help   people   think  their  way   through 
that,    and  not    get   upset   because  your   pet    project    doesn't    get 
supported   immediately,    you're  in  the  wrong  business.      You've 
really   got   to   come   after   these   things  in  a  totally  open,    objective 
way,    and   that's  why   I  perceived  the  vice   president's  role   to  be 
an  advocate  for   the  agricultural   needs  and  to  interpret  for   the 
agricultural   community   how   we  fit  in  dealing  with  total  societal 
needs.      My   role  was  to  try  and  explain  to  agriculture   that   there 
are  other   competing  needs   of   society,    as  well  as  trying  to 


246 


Kendrick:  advocate  the  agricultural  needs  at  the  same  time.  I  found  it  fun 
to  be  in  that  role.  But  it  certainly  is  a  challenge  and  somewhat 
frustrating  at  times. 

Well,    we   spent   a  lot  of   time  on  two  issues,    or   two  units  of 
activity,   but   I   think   they   are   important  activities  as  far  as   the 
experiment   station  and  extension  programs  are  concerned.      And 
extension  has  a  major   share   of    the   program   responsibilities   in 
the   issues    center. 


Kearney   Foundation  for   Soil   Science 


Genesis  and  Direction 


Kendrick:      The  first  attempt   to  introduce   flexibility   of   funding  so  that  we 

could  address   programs   of  more  current  interest   than  it  was   possi 
ble  with   previous   special  appropriations  was  done  with  the  Kearney 
Foundation  for  Soil   Science.      There  was   a  fund   created   by   the  Uni 
versity    for   the  pursuit   of    soil    science   research,    which   resulted 
from    the   sale   of   property   in  the   San  Joaquin  Valley,    the   Kearney 
Ranch.      That  property   was  originally   given  to  the  University    with 
the  hope,   at  least,    that   there  would   be  a   campus   of    the  University 
of   California  established  in  the  lower   San  Joaquin  Valley.      And 
was  pursued  rather  vigorously   by   the    [Chester]    Rowell   family. 

Lage :  Now,    when  was   this? 

Kendrick:      That   goes   back  to  Robert  Gordon  Sproul's   time.      The  San  Joaquin 
Valley   interests  really  wanted   a  med  school.    I   think,    but   they 
also  wanted  a   campus  of    the  University.      I   don't  know    if    it  was 
felt   the   property   was   surplus  to   the  University's   needs   or   it 
wasn't  located  where  a   campus  would  be   desirable,    or  what,    but 
for  some  reason,    Bob  Underbill,   who  was   the   secretary-treasurer 
of    the  Regents,    sold  it  and  got  a   good  price   for   it.      Part   of    the 
proceeds  from  that   sale  were   set  aside  by   the  Regents  to  function 
as  a   foundation  for   research   in  soil   problems  affecting  agricul 
ture.      So   the  Kearney   Foundation  for  Soil   Science    became    a   reality. 
In  the  early  days  of    its  existence   with  its  handsome  annual  yield 
of   several  hundred  thousand  dollars,    it  was  administered   by    the 
chairman  of    the  Department   of   Soil    Science   at  Berkeley. 

Lage:  So  it  was   something  you  inherited. 

Kendrick:      Yes.      And  it   became   rather   identified  as  an  augmentation  of    the 
supporting  funds  for   the  Department   of   Soil   Science.      When   Perry 
Stout   of    Soil    Science   moved  to  Da\  is,    the  fund  went  to  Davis  with 
him  because  he  was  administering   the    program. 


247 


Kendrick:      My  Administrative  Advisory  Committee,   which  consisted  of  the 

deans  and  the  directors,    all   agreed  that  we   should  try    to  change 
the   goal   and  administration  of    that  foundation  fund.      We 
conceived  of   a  program  which  was  unique,    somewhat  bold,    and 
continues  to  operate  today.      What  we  wanted  to   do  was  establish 
five-year  programs,    with   a  different   director  for  each  program, 
with  a  budget  that   consisted  of   the  yield  from   the  investments   of 
the   foundation's  funds.      It  was   designed  to  be   a  mini-granting 
agency.      The  only  requirement  was   that   the   problem   defined  for 
the   five-year   project   be    in  soil   science   or  related  subjects. 

The   problem  was  to   convince   the  existing   director   of   the 
Kearney   Foundation,    who  was  Professor  Perry   Stout,    a  long-time 
Berkeley   faculty  member  who  had  moved  to  Davis,    that  this  was   in 
the  best   interests  of    the  future  of    the  Kearney   Foundation.      We 
wanted  to   set  up  an  advisory   committee  to  select  a   problem,    and 
to   suggest  a   director,    and  to  then  provide   oversight   during  that 
five-year    period   of    the  research  activity.      It  all   seemed  like  a 
very    fine    idea  at   the  time. 

We  were  able   to  do   that,    without   too  much  dust  in  the  air. 
Perry  Stout   cooperated  beautifully,    somewhat   to   the  surprise   of 
many    people.      They    thought   that   Perry   was   going  to  be    too 
possessive   of   his   prerogative  to  run  it,    but  he — 

Lage:  Had  the  funds   been  used  previously   to  fund  whatever  the  soil 

scientists  happened  to  be  working  on,    and  now  you  were   going  to 
try   to  control    the  choice   of    research   subjects  a  little  bit  more? 

Kendrick:      That's   correct;    that  a   good  way   to   describe  it.      We   thought  it 
had  been  confined  a  little   too  much  to  the  departmental 
activities  and  particular  problems  that   Perry   Stout  felt  were 
important.      We  felt   that  we  needed  a  broader  base  of   input   into 
the    direction  of   the   overall    program. 

The  technical   advisory   committee  that  we  put  together  was 
broadly  representative   of   soil   scientists  and  extension   personnel 
in   the  University   of   California.      It   selected  nitrogen  and  its 
fate  in  soil  as   the  first  five-year   program,   and  identified  as 
the  director   for   that  five-year  program,    Don  Nielsen,    who  is  now 
the   senior  associate   dean  in  the   College   of  Agriculture  and 
Environmental    Sciences  at  Davis.      We   owe  Don  a  lot  of   credit  for 
establishing  the  ground  rules  and   the  operational   mode  for   the 
moving  five-year  project  which  ha  subsequently  characterized  the 
foundation's   program.      An  important  aspect   of   the  rules    governing 
the  projects  of   the  foundation  is  that  none   of    the  five-year 
programs   could  be  renewed  for  an  additional   five-year   term.      We 
wanted  to  automatically   interrupt   potential    dynasties. 


248 


Kendrick:      Another  stipulation  was   that  we  would  not   renew   a   director's 
term.      Each  director   had  to  be   someone  identified  with  the 
current  research   problem. 

Lage:  What  was  the  thought  behind  that? 

Kendrick:      Well,   we  just   didn't  want  any   single   program   to  monopolize   the 
future,    and  we  wanted  to  preserve   the  flexibility   of    the  fund. 
Another  stipulation  was   that   the  headquarters   for   the  foundation 
would  be   on  the  campus  of    the  selected  director.      So  it  could  be 
at   Davis,    or  it   could  be  at   Riverside   or  Berkeley,    wherever   the 
faculty    home   of    the  director  was.      And  that,    in  fact,    did  happen. 
The  importance  of   that   concept  was  that  it  was  very   difficult   to 
move  resources  from   one  campus  to  another,    particularly   regularly 
budgeted  funds.      We   gave   the  entire   budget   of    the  foundation  to 
the  director   and  his  advisors   to  administer  in  any   way   they 
wanted  to.      So   they   could   call   for   proposals  and  make  research 
grants. 

Lage:  They   hired  the  staff  on  a  five-year  basis? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      And   then  they   use  a   certain  amount   of    the   support   to  wind 
things   up  into  a   publication,    or   a  workshop,    or   a   symposium,    or 
what  have  you.      The    concept   I  had  about   continuing   the   program 
was  that,    if   it  was  of   such  current   interest  and  importance  to 
the  field  of   soil  science,    then  other  funding   sources  would  move 
in  and   take   over.      And,    in  fact,    they   did — the  National    Science 
Foundation  pursued  a  number   of    things   in  the   nitrogen   program. 

Lage:  And  was  the  public  presentation  a  part  of   it  also — you  mentioned 

some  kind  of   a  workshop  or  — ? 

Kendrick:      It  wasn't  all   that   public,    but   this   particular  one  ended  up  with 
a   two-   or   three-day    symposium,   a   discussion  of    the  results.     But 
there  were  ongoing  contributions  and  publications.      So  it  was 
really  quite  a   successful  venture. 

The  next   topic  selected  was  a  study  of   the  fate  of  heavy 
metals  in  the  soil   system.      The   director  was   Al    [Albert]    Page    of 
Riverside. 

Lage:  When  you  pick  a   director,    do  you  look  into  their  administrative 

capabilities?      It   seems   that  you  need   certain   talents   that  you 
don't   need  to  be   a   professor,     in  order   to  administer   a  granting 
agency. 

Kendrick:     Well,    I'll  have  to  admit   that  that  wasn't   the  primary 

requirement.      First  and  foremost,   we   picked  someone  who  had  a 
reputation  and  knowledge   of    the  subject   matter.      It   turns  out 
that   the    people  we've   selected   all   have  had   reasonably    good 
competence   in  administering  a   program   such  as  this,    and  of 


249 


Kendrick:      course,    there's   enough  money   to    provide    some  administrative 

support.      If  you  needed  to  augment   the  departmental    staff   so   that 
you'd  have  an  administrative  aide  to  take   care   of    the   ruts   and 
bolts  of  keeping  track  of    the  funds   and  other  administrative 
duties,    that   was    possible. 

Then  the  next   five-year  program  was  a  soil-water   salinity 
program  with  John  Letey  at   Riverside  as   the   third  five-year 
director.       He    is   a   professor    of   soil   science   at  Riverside. 


Flexible  Response  to   the  Kesterson   Crisis 


Kendrick:      We're    into   the   fourth   cycle   now,     so   that  we've  just    gotten 

another   program   started,    and   the  Kearney   Foundation's   program  has 
moved  back  to  Davis  with  Kenneth  Tanj  i  as  the  director.      He   came 
on  board  just   in   time   to   inherit    the  Kesterson   problem.      What 
pleased  me  most  was  that  because   of   the  importance   of   the 
selenium  accumulations  and  its  toxicity   in   the  Kesterson 
reservoir,    the  director   and  the  advisory  committee  delayed  the 
program  of   the  Kearney   Foundation  one  year  and   directed   the 
funding  that  would  normally   go   into  that  program   to  study   the 
Kesterson  situation. 


Lage: 
Kendrick: 


** 

The  level    of   funding  had  reached,    I   think,    three   to  four 
hundred   thousand   dollars  annually.      This   is   a  model    that   I   really 
think   could   serve   the  cause   of   flexibility   well   in  the  future. 
Because  we  had  this   system  in  place  when  this  Kesterson   problem 
came   along  and  had  not  yet  committed  funds  from    the  foundation 
into  the  next  five-year  program,    the   decision   could   be  made   to 
divert   that    first  year's  yield  into  the  Kesterson   situation  and 
problem.     Ken  Tanj  i,   who  was   the   designated   director   of   the 
fourth   five-year   program   for   soil   sciences,    was  also  a  co-leader 
of    the   Kesterson  research   project. 

But   only   one  year   spent   on  it,    or — ? 

That's    the   only  year    that    I'm    aware    of    that    the   foundation's 
resources  were  diverted  to  that  activity  because  we   then  went  for 
special   appropriations  for   the   solution  to  Kesterson.      Rather 
than  having  to  wait  a  year   to  get   some  special   appropriations, 
here  we  had  an  opportunity  to   do  what   our  external   clientele  had 
been  telling  us   to  do,    which  was  to  reallocate  from   existing 
funds.      And  the  only  way  we  had  money   available  to   do   so  was 
because   we  had  the  foresight   fifteen  years  earlier  to  increase 
the  flexibility  of  a  significant  amount   of   money  which  happily 
was  available   to  meet  an  emergency. 


250 


Kendrick:      I  think  without   that  kind  of   a  flexible  funding,    we  would   still 
be   waiting  for   the  legislature   to  appropriate  enough  money   to 
divert  people  from  existing  commitments  in  their  regular   programs 
into   some  of    the   research  programs  that  were  needed  to  address 
the  Kesterson  problem.      The  Kesterson  Waste  Management   group  was 
put    together  rather  quickly  as  a   task  force.      The  director   of    the 
experiment   station  and  one  of  his  assistants,    who  was  his    program 
coordinator,    assembled  people   in  both   the  experiment   station, 
extension,    and  anybody   else  who  had  expressed  an  interest, 
including  the  water  center  people,    at  a  meeting  to  see  what  we 
knew  about  the   problem  and  what  we  could  do  about   it.      That  waste 
management   task  force  was  another  one  of   the  devices  that  was 
used  to  mobilize  for  specific   kinds   of   problems   the  resources   of 
the  experiment   station  and  extension  into  units  that  could 
address    those    problems. 

That  same  kind  of    technique   had  been  used  about   fifteen 
years  earlier  to  form  a  committee  of   consultants   for   agricultural 
water  quality   standards.      When  the  water  laws  and  water  quality 
control   boards   came   into  existence  in  the   state   of   California, 
one   of    the  requirements   of    the  legislation  was  for  districts  to 
define    their   own  water  quality   standards.      I   don't   know  just   hew 
many   districts   there  are,    but   there  are  quite  a  few — maybe 
fifteen,    or   twenty.      And   those  water   districts'   boards  were 
composed  of   lay   people,    primarily,    and  some  engineers.      They 
employed  consultants  to  help  them   define  what   they   needed  to   pay 
attention  to  as  far  as   defining  standards  for  domestic  water 
quality  within  the   district.     But   the   boards  found   themselves 
uninformed  when  they  came  to  consider  agricultural   matters  and 
what  agricultural  waters   did  to  water  quality  in  general,    as  well 
as  what  agricultural    activities   required  as  far  as  quality   was 
concerned.      It's   no   secret    that   agricultural    crops    don't    grow 
well  when  water  with  high  content   of  certain  heavy   metals  or 
salinity   is   used  to   irrigate    them. 

Some  of    the  boards   came   to  the  University   seeking  help  in 
dealing  with  these  matters   that  affected  agriculture  and  water 
quality.      So  we  formed  primarily   within  Cooperative  Extension  a 
committee  of   consultants   composed  of  knowledgeable   people  in 
irrigation  and  water  matters.      Some  experiment   station  people 
were  also  included  in  the   committee.      The   chief   contributor  and 
leader  of    this  activity   was  Bob  Ayers,    who  was  an  extension 
specialist   in  irrigation.      Bob  has   since  retired  and  is  living   in 
Davis.      That  consultant   group   performed  in  a   handsome  manner, 
contributing  when  called  upon  for   the  information  needed  to 
establish  water  quality   standards   in  those   districts  seeking 
help. 

So   in  a  way,    we  had  experience   in  assembling  experts  under 
the   direction  of  a  coordinator   to   deal  with   problems   that   kind   of 
popped  up  unexpectedly   with   no   real    planning  for   them   to  be   on 


251 


Kendrick:      our  active  agenda.      The  Kesterson   situation  was  handled  in  a 

similar  manner,    but   the  problem  was  a  little  bit  different,    and 
the  solution  is   complex  as  well   as    difficult.      Working  in   this 
program   has   been  complicated  by   the  competing  activities  of 
several  federal  and  state  agencies  each  with  some  responsibility 
for   regulating  water  use   and  runoff.      So   the   task  force   is  a 
useful   technique   that  has   evolved  to  handle  issues   that   are,    as 
I   say,    unpredictable,    and  sort   of   come  at  you  in  a  hurry. 


Slosson   Fund  for   Ornamental   Horticulture 


Kendrick:      One   of   the  early-on  unexpected  funding  augmentations   of  another 
defined  program   of   our   organization  was  done  in  support   of 
ornamental   horticulture.      We  had  an  extension  specialist  in 
Cooperative  Extension  by   the  name   of   Harry   Butterfield,    long 
since   deceased.      Harry  was   kind   of  a  one-person  encyclopedia   of 
ornamental   horticulture,    who  worked  very  closely  with  garden  club 
organizations  and   people  interested  in   gardens   and   urban   plantings. 
He   provided  a   great   deal    of    service,    and  I   think  he  helped 
organize   the  Garden   Clubs   of   California  into  a    state   society. 

In  the  course   of   doing  that,    one   of   the  people  whom   he 
helped  was   a  widowed  lady   by   the   name   of    [Elvenia  J.]    Slosson. 
Mrs.    Slosson  was   the  early   founder  of    the  California  Garden  Club 
Association.      Harry  had  worked   closely  with  her  for  a   good  part 
of   his   career.      Well,    the  result   of    this   good  relationship  was 
that   Mrs.    Slosson  left   the  University   a  million   dollars  to   be 
used   to   enhance    the  public's  appreciation  of    ornamental 
horticulture   through  both   the  research  and  extension.       Since 
Harry  Butterfield  was   in  extension,    there  was  a  strong 
committment  for  using  these  funds  to  address   the   practical   needs 
of   persons  who  were   trying  to  enhance   ornamental   plants  in  an 
urban  setting. 

Having  a   million  dollars   at  my   disposal  was  more  than  I'd 
been  accustomed  to  receiving.      We   set  up   the  fund  as  an  endowment 
so  that  only  the  income  from   the  million  dollar  investment  was 
available  for   the   program.      I  appointed  a   committee   to  advise  me 
on  how   best   to  use   this   money.      We  started  with  the  concept   of   a 
Slosson  Fellowship  for  which  we  would  make  a  major  grant  on  a 
competitive  basis   to  a  member  of    the  faculty   for  a  period  not  to 
exceed  five  years.      The   Slosson  Fellows  had  an  obligation  to  make 
a   useful   contribution  from    their  research  program  to  practical 
ornamental  horticulture.      The  first   Slosson  fellow   was  Toshio 
Murashige   on  the  Riverside  campus,    who  had  a  strong  research 
program  in  cultivating  embryos   of   plants  and  freeing   them    of 
viruses.      This   embryo  transplant   technique  has  become  very  widely 
used  in   the   ornamental   nursery   industry   for   propagating   plants. 


252 


Kendrick:      But  in  due   course,    the  advisory   committee   became   a  little 

disenchanted  with  granting  all   that   money   to  one   person;    they 
thought  it  would  be  more  useful   if  we  had  a   stronger   extension 
component   and  had   grants   to  more  people,    so  we  changed  the 
methods  and   goals  for   the   Slosson  Fund.      We   dropped   the   Slosson 
fellow   concept   and  asked  the  Slosson  Advisory   Committee   to  deal 
with  grants  and  spread  them  around  the   system.      So  we  have 
another  fund,    like    the  Kearney   Foundation  for   Soil   Science,    a 
fund  that  supports   defined  programs.      The  advisory   committee  has 
also  adopted  a  five-year  emphasis  of   particular  programs  within 
the  expanded  topic   of    ornamental   horticulture. 


Mosquito  Research   Program;      Broadening  Decision-Making  for   a 
Cooperative  Effort 


Kendrick:      The  mosquito  research  program  was  one   that  I   inherited  which  had 
had  kind  of  a  stormy   existence   because  it  had   participants  who 
were  interested  in  mosquito  research  for  entirely  different 
reasons.      The  external   group  interested  in  what   the  University 
was   doing  in  mosquito  control    research  were   the  managers  of   the 
abatement   districts.      California  is   organized  into  mosquito 
abatement   districts,    which  are   supported  by   local    taxes.      These 
districts  have  as  their  goal    the   control    of   mosquitoes  within 
their  boundaries.      The  manager  is  a  locally  employed  person  who 
is  charged  with  keeping  the  mosquitoes  from  annoying   people  and 
transmitting   diseases. 

Another   component   group  interested  in  mosquito  research  is 
in  the  Department   of  Health  Services,    formerly   called   the 
California  Department   of    Public  Health.      And  the  Department   of 
Public  Health  had  a  unit   in  vector   control   monitoring  and  research 
and  also   had  a   unit   in  research   on  the   control    of    mosquitoes. 

Another  unit,    not   under   the   control   or   direction  of    the  vice 
president   for  agricultural    sciences,    was   in  our  own  faculties  of 
the   two  schools   of  public  health,   one  at  Berkeley  and  one  at 
UCLA.      The   two  units  outside   of   agriculture   that  were  engaged  in 
mosquito  research  were  interested  in  epidemiology  in  relationship 
to  the  onset   of    malaria,    sleeping  sickness,    and  other  mosquito- 
borne    diseases    affecting  public   health. 

Then  we  had  within  the  experiment   station  in  entomological 
units  at  Berkeley,    Davis,    and  Riverside,    people  who  were   doing 
research   in  mosquito  control,    and  mosquito  epidemiology.      That 
unit  was  more  or  less   directly  under   the   program   of   the   Division 
of    Agricultural    Sciences.      All   of    these   diverse   units  had  a 
common  interest^   but   they  were   coming  at  it  from  a  different 
perspective. 


253 


Kendrick:      Also  there  was  some  funding  in  the   California  Department   of 

Public  Health  for   mosquito  research   that,    before  I  became   the 
vice  president,    was  moved  to   the  University   of   California  in 
support   of    research  because   of   some  disenchantment  by  the 
mosquito  abatement  district  managers  with  the  California 
Department   of    Public  Health.      And  there  was  some  resentment,    as 
one  might  expect,    in  losing  a   program   in  the   California 
Department    of    Public  Health   to   the  University. 

Another   thing   that   sort   of   characterized  mosquito  research, 
of   which   I  became  aware  in  due   course,    was  that  it  was  good  news 
media  material.      As  far  as  public  news  media  was   concerned,    we 
seemed  to  constantly  be   discovering  a  promising  new   mechanism  to 
abate  mosquito  problems.     And  somehow   or  other,   mosquito  problems 
continue    to  exist.      The  new    method  somehow   wasn't  really  a 
panacea  for   control;    it  wasn't  as    good  as  it   promised  to  be.      Our 
researchers,    however,    continued  to  keep  the  public's   interest 
high  on   these  new   discoveries.      That  frustrated  not   only   the 
mosquito  abatement   district   managers,    but  also  people  who  paid 
attention  to  research  in  mosquito  abatement. 

I   began  to  wonder  how    I   might  bring  all  of   this  together  and 
have  a  cooperative   program   that  would  restore    the   confidence   of 
the  district    officers  and  the  public  in  what  would  be   perceived 
to   be  a  useful,    needed   program   in  mosquito  research. 

Lage:  Were  you  getting  complaints   that  made  you  turn  your  attention  to 

this? 

Kendrick:      Yes,    I  would  hear  from,    particularly,    the  managers   of   the 

districts.      They  were   complaining  about   not  receiving  useful 
information,    and  that   it  was  not  being  made  available  to  them. 
It  was  an  ongoing  program,    but  it   certainly  was  not  well- 
coordinated  because   the  experiment   station  group  was  pursuing  the 
problem  from   their  own  perspective,   and  the  public  health   groups 
were   doing  research  based  on  their  needs. 

I   thought,    once  again,    this   calls  for  a   committee, 
[laughter]      When  in  doubt,    form   a  committee.      But,    as  trite  as   it 
sounds,   it   is  really   the   only  way   to  introduce   different 
perspectives  into  a   common  forum   so  you  can  begin  to  discuss  what 
those  issues   are  and   see   if  you   can't  arrive  at    some 
accommodation  for   everybody's  needs  and  wishes.      So   that  was 
done.       I  had   all   the   parties   that    I  just    described  represented   on 
this   Mosquito  Research  Advisory   Committee.      And  I   chaired  it,   at 
least  initially. 

I  believed  that  what  was  really  needed  was  someone  who  could 
give  the  mosquito  program  full-time  attention.  One  of  the  strong 
persons  who  helped  me  organize  was  Bill  Reeves,  Professor  Reeves, 
of  the  School  of  Public  Health  in  Berkeley;  he  is  an 


254 


Kendrick:      entomologist.     He   developed  a   career  in  mosquito  research  and   the 
epidemiology   of    the  vector   control.      And  I  quickly   determined. 
and  Bill  and  the  committee  also  agreed,    that  we   needed  an 
extension- type   individual    to  coordinate  all   of    the  research   and 
to  relate  regularly  with  the  abatement   district   managers.      So  we 
brought  a  well- qualified  person  in  from   Colorado,    whose  name  I 
don't   remember.      That  was   the  first   step  in  putting  a  rationale 
into   the   program.      We  added  this   coordinator   to  extension's 
staff,    but  he   didn't  really   function  as   a    typical   extension 
person. 

I   told  him   that   I  wanted  him  to  pay  particular  attention  to 
the  various   needs   of    the   district   people  and  to   organize  and 
manage   the  granting  part   of    the  program.      We  had  several   hundred 
thousand  dollars  to  oversee  and  I  wanted  to  be  sure   that   the 
money   was   going  to  programs  that  were  of   current   interest  and  had 
scientific  validity.      So  in  the  experiment   station,    we  asked   the 
entomologists  to  organize  an  entomology   steering  committee  that 
peer-evaluated  the  applications  for  funding  from   the  mosquito 
fund.      The  mosquito  abatement   district   organization  had  a 
research  group  in  their   organization  which  had  a   great   interest 
in   the  University's   research   program.       I   asked  this   group   to 
review   the  research  proposals  and  to   prioritize   them  according  to 
their  views.      Finally,    the  University   Mosquito  Research  Advisory 
Committee,   which  had  representatives   of   all   participating   groups, 
evaluated  the   requests  and  made    the  decisions  concerning  the 
awards. 

That  format  has   continued.      The  original   person,    identified 
as    [laughs] — I  like  to  call  him  the  head  mosquito — did  much  to 
quiet   the  nervousness  about   the  system.      He  worked  very   well  with 
both  federal   and   state  agencies  and  local   district  managers.      We 
were   searching  for   another   person  to  assume   this  role,    and  just 
before   I  left   office.    Bruce   Eldredge  from  Oregon  was   invited  to 
come  down  and  assume  an  appointment  in  the  experiment  station 
with  the   charge   that  mosquito  research  coordination  was  his 
primary    responsibility. 

The  major  deficiency  of   the  program,    while  I  was  associated 
with  it,    was  my  inability  to  bring   the  locally-based   Cooperative 
Extension  people   into  the  program,    even  though   a  Cooperative 
Extension  position  was  assigned   the  responsibility   for   the 
coordination  of    mosquito  research.      It  was  difficult   to  engage 
the  local   county   offices   into  mosquito   problems,    for   reasons    I'm 
not   sure  I  know.      It  always  seemed  to  me   that   the  locally-based 
Cooperative  Extension  people  were  in  a   pretty   good   position  to 
work  with  mosquito  control   programs,    particularly  in  rice-growing 
regions.      The  rice-land  water   contributed  a  lot  to   the  mosquito 
problems   in  northern  California.      Many   agricultural    operations 
also  lead  to  mosquito  production;   waste  water   collections  and   the 
like   were  a   part   of    the   problem. 


255 


Lage: 


Why   did  you  have   trouble  engaging   Cooperative  Extension? 


Kendrick:      I   don't   think  the   coordinator  worked  with  Cooperative  Extension 
the   same  way   other  extension  specialists    did. 

Lage:  It   wasn't   necessarily   resistance   on  the  part  of   Cooperative 

Extension? 

Kendrick:      No,    I   think  it  was   the  fact   that  the  normal   responsibility   for 
mosquito   control  rested  with  the  abatement    district  managers. 
They're   the   ones  who  have   the  contacts  and  who   deal  with  the 
local   communities.      I  think  it  was  a   case  where  a  public  agency 
had  the   primary    responsibility   for  controlling  mosquitoes  so 
Cooperative  Extension  did  not  have    this    program   high  on   their    own 
agenda.      I   had  no  quarrel   with   that  view,    but   I   did  expect 
Cooperative  Extension  people  to  work  with  the  abatement    district 
people  when  the  mosquito  problem  was  associated  with  an 
agricultural   practice. 

ff 

What   I've  been  describing  are  mechanisms   used  to  respond  to 
identified  agricultural   needs  in  an  environment  where   there 
really   wasn't  very    much   flexibility   in  the  ongoing  appropriations 
from  state  and  federal  sources.      The  fundamental   research   program 
in  the  experiment   station  is   the  aggregation  of   many   projects 
where  something  in  the  order  of   twelve  hundred  to  fifteen  hundred 
projects  are  active  at  any   one   time.      But   this  array   of    research 
projects  are   categorized  into  a   classification   system   so   that  you 
can  increasingly  aggregate   the  projects  of    the  experiment   station 
into   broader  and   broader   caregories,    such  as   pest  and  disease 
control,    or   agricultural   production,    or  nutrition.      So  for   the 
purposes  of  administrative   convenience  you  could  say   that  60 
percent   of   all   resources  were  going  into  agriculture  production 
kinds  of  activities  and  maybe  5   to  10   percent  were  expended  for 
nutritional   quality   kinds   of   programs. 

Those  kinds  of    statistics    get  you  into  as  much   trouble  as 
they   do   in  providing  an  understanding  of   where  your  funding  is 
being  expended  because   special   interest   groups  have   different 
points  of   view    relative  to  whether  or  not  you  were 
overemphasizing  or  underemphasizing  particular  programs  by   the 
allocations    of    resources. 

Lage:  If  you  make   someone  happy,   you're   bothering  someone   else. 

Kendrick:      And  there   is  a  lack  of   understanding  that   in  order   to  shift 
resources,     I  had  to   shift   people.      It's  not   easy   to    shift  an 
agricultural    engineer   into  the  program   of   labor   relations.      You 
make  essentially  a  lifetime   commitment  to  a  person  when  you 
employ   them    in  a  ladder  position  on  the  faculty   of   the 


256 


Kendrick:      Agricultural  Experiment  Station,    and  you  make  a   similar  lifetime 
commitment   to  the  career   of    the  person  in  extension.      Even  though 
tenure  is   not  a   part   of   the   Cooperative  Extension   system,     it's 
pretty   secure  employment  as  long  as  the  individual   remains 
productive  and  active. 

That's  just   another   way    of    saying   that   there's   not   a   lot   of 
flexibility  to  adjust  your   programs  quickly   once  you  make   those 
commitments.      The  only   way    to  have  flexibility   is  to  have  a 
broadly-based  continuously  employed   staff   so   that  you   can   call 
upon  particular  specialists  when  a   problem   emerges,    unless  you're 
talking  about  a  long-term  basic   research   program,    such  as   in 
biotechnology   or  in  toxic  waste   management   and  the  like.      Ajid  the 
techniques   I've   described  are  ways   of   utilizing  a  little    bit    of 
money   that  becomes  available  to  make   specific  grants  to 
individuals  to  buy  their   time  and  attention   away   from  an  already 
busy   schedule  into  a   focused  research   and  extension  program   that 
has  some   practical   utilization  in  agriculture  and  natural 
resource    problem   areas. 

Most   of    the  faculty   and  staff  are  busy   and  fully  committed. 
You  have  to  interest  them  in  doing  what  you  want   them   to    do,    at 
the  expense   of   disinteresting  them    in  doing  what  they   want   to  do, 
and  for  which  they   already  may  have   some  funding  support 
available.      The  problem   is  accentuated  if  you  are  dealing  with  a 
particularly  skillful  research  worker  who  has  oodles   of   money 
from    the  National    Science   Foundation,    or   the  National    Institutes 
of  Health,    or   some   other   granting  agency.      You  must   interest   that 
person  in,    for   instance,    the  problem  of   selenium   accumulation  in 
the  ground  water  system  in  the  Kesterson  region  if   he   or   she   is   a 
person  who  has   the   skills  you  need  to  work  on  that  particular 
problem.      After   arousing   the    person's   interest  you  must   then  have 
resources  available   to   support  whatever   effort   that  person  can 
devote  to   the   problem.      Well,    that's  not    all    that   easily    done. 
But    the   techniques   I've   described  were   successfully   applied  ar.d 
did  diversify  our  program  in  research  when  these   particular   kinds 
of    problems  arose. 


San  Joaquin  Valley  Agricultural   Research   and  Extension  Center 


A  UC  Program   for   the  San  Joaquin  Valley 


Kendrick:      One  of   the   things   that   was  established  early   on  was   the   San 
Joaquin  Valley   Agricultural    Research   and  Extension  Center, 
located  at   the  Kearney  Horticultural   Field  Station,    one   of  our 
nine  agricultural    field  stations,    located  near   Parlier,    about 
twenty  miles  southeast   of   Fresno.      This  was  a   concept  to  increase 


257 


Kendrick:      the  visibility  and  activity   of   research  and  extension  in  the   San 
Joaquin  Valley   by   assigning  academic  and  extension  people  to  that 
center.      It  was  in   contrast  to  our   other  field  stations,    which 
merely   provided  facilities  for  research.      This  was  a  modest 
attempt  to  respond  to  the  long-time  yearning   of   the   San  Joaquin 
Valley    interests  for   a  campus   of    the  University   of   California  in 
their   area. 

So  there  were  experiment   station  personnel   and  extension 
specialists  located  in  augmented  physical   facilities  at   Kearney. 
It   is  a   difficult   concept   to  understand;    those   of   us 
administering  it   could  understand  it,    but  the  external   community 
certainly   couldn't    see   the  difference   in  activity   between  a   field 
station  and  a   center.      It  was   really  quite   different   because  we 
had  departmental   members  from  Berkeley,    Davis,    and  Riverside,    as 
well   as  extension  specialists  assigned  to   the   center.       Presently, 
there  are  about   eighty   people  at  this   center,    and  we've   shortened 
the   name  to   the  Kearney  Agricultural   Center.      The   center  has 
buildings   of    its  own,    the  most  recent   of  which  is  under 
construction  costing  about  five  million   dollars,    to   provide  more 
research   space.      The  center   is  administered  by   an  executive 
committee  of   three   persons  and  it  will   address  agricultural 
problems   characteristic   of    the   San  Joaquin  Valley.      We  wanted  to 
make  it  a   true  agricultural   research  and  extension   center  for   the 
Valley. 

Lage :  It  sounds  somewhat   similar  to  what  the  Citrus  Experiment  Station 

might  have   been   initially. 

Kendrick:      That   shows  how  well  you  are  grounded  in  the  background  with 

agriculture.      You  are   precisely   right.      It  is  in  a   sense  an  early 
edition  of   what   the  Citrus  Experiment   Station  was  originally. 

The   difficulty   of   staffing  the  Kearney  Agricultural    Center 
with  academic   personnel    is   that   once    they're  located  away   from   a 
campus,    their  future  promotions  and  advancements  become  more 
difficult.      They   are  removed  from  day-to-day  contacts  with  their 
colleagues  on  the   campuses,   who  will  ultimately   sit  in  judgment 
of    the  quality   of    their  work.      Moreover,    until  you  have  a 
critical   mass   of   people  representing  several   disciplines,   and  a 
library,    and  a   few    students  around,    it   is   difficult   to  be   a   real 
self-starter  and  perform  in  a  manner   that  is    deemed  acceptable   by 
the  University    of    California  in  these   non-campus   areas.      That's 
the   primary  reason  why  we've  never  located  very  many   people  from 
the  academic  community   at  these  field  stations;    instead,    we  have 
kept  them  as  facilities  for   campus-based  people  to   conduct   their 
research   on  a   need   basis. 

But  the  Kearney  Agricultural  Center  still  has  the  potential 
for  being  another  Citrus  Experiment  Station.  In  my  judgment,  it 
really  depends  on  whether  or  not  the  ultimate  funding  and  the 


258 


Kendrick:      numbers  of   people  associated  with  it  will   become  sufficiently 
large    to  become  a  unit  of    its  own,    with  its  own  budget  and 
ability  to  determine  its  own   destiny.      There  are    people  who   think 
it  may,    and  there  are  people  who   think  that   the  nature  of    the 
University's  advancement   system   is   such   that   it  mitigates  against 
its  ever  becoming  anything  other   than  an  expanded  field  station 
facility. 

I   think  that   the  real   challenge   is   to  develop  an 
academically  acceptable   program  at  Kearney  without  trying  to 
convince    the  regular  campus-based  faculty   that   they   could  operate 
at   the  Kearney  Agricultural   Center   effectively  and  still    protect 
their  future.      I   proposed  that  we   try    locating  at   the   center   a 
post-doctoral   cadre  of   people  who  have  term  appointments  and  who 
realize   that   they   would  not  be    there  for   their  entire   career. 
Such  an  arrangement  would  provide  an  opportunity   to   the   post 
doctoral   person  to  gain  experience   in  practical   problems 
associated  with  agriculture.      They   could   conduct  research  in  an 
environment  where  the  public  would  be  watching  them   doing  things 
that  they  thought  were  important,   and  they  would  have  an 
opportunity    to   relate   directly  with   the  agricultural    clientele. 
I  think  the   concept  is  worthy   of   trial   because   it  would   provide   a 
period  of    internship  for   future  agricultural    research   people 
without  committing  to  long-term  employment  of  permanent 
personnel. 

Locating  extension  specialists  there   is  less  of   a  problem 
because   their  kinds   of  activities   are   precisely    those   that  are 
deemed  to  be    of   practical   nature,    and  their  advancement   does  not 
suffer  by   their  activities  at   such  a   center.      And  as  long  as 
there   are  enough   academic  people   there,     they   don't  lose    touch 
with  or  the   stimulation  of   associations  with  academic   colleagues. 

So  the  commitment  of   an  augmentation  to  the  facility,    I 
think,    is  something  that   President  Gardner  was   interested  in 
pursuing   because   we  really   hadn't  had  very   good  visibility   as  far 
as   the   total  University   of   California  was    concerned.      In  spite   of 
much   agricultural   activity   by   the  University,    it's   been   somewhat 
diversified.      It   needs  to  be  more  visible  and  perhaps   more 
coordinated   to  receive   the  attention  it   deserves.      The 
University's   program  visibility  is   important   because  we  have 
Fresno   State  University    in  that   same  region.      The  agricultural 
people  at   Fresno  State  are   constantly   suggesting   that    they're    the 
ones  who  are  addressing  the  practical   problems  of   agriculture, 
and  that   the  University   is  only   interested  in  basic  research  and 
therefore  has  withdrawn  from   those   things   that   the  agricultural 
community  deems  important. 

Well,     that's   not   true.      But    impressions  and  perceptions  are 
what   build  budgets  and  persuade  appropriating  agencies,    so 
there's   more   than  just   pride   at   stake   here.      We  need  a   broader- 


259 


Kendrick:      based  recognition  of    the  agricultural   programs   of   the  University 
of    California  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley   and  an  active   support   of 
their  value  and  importance.      We've  had   good  support  from   that 
area  in  the  past,    and  that  we   cannot   treat  lightly.      It  will   go 
away   if    the   politicians  and   their  supporters   perceive   that  we're 
too  purely   academic   to  address  the  practical   problems  of 
agriculture   in   the   region. 

Whether   the   concept   of   a  Kearney  Agricultural   Center 
develops  fruitfully   or  not   I   think  is    problematical.      It  has   a 
budget   of    its  own  which  is  separate  from   the  field  station 
budget.      I  was  involved  with  a  special   appropriation  request  from 
the   state  for   the  center   early   on  in  my   vice   presidency.      I   had 
to  help   shepherd  it   through   the  legislature.      We   started  out 
again  with  about   a  half  a  million  dollar  request  and  wound  up 
with  about  half   of    that  amount. 


Administrative  Changes 


Lage  :  So   this    goes  way   back. 

Kendrick:      This   goes   back  to  1968-69.      The  administration  of    the  center  has 
undergone   several   administrative   changes.      The   biggest   boost   the 
center  received  was  when  I  asked  Bill    [William  B.]    Hewitt,    who 
was  a   professor   of   plant    pathology,    to   direct   the    center's 
program.      He  had  been  the  chair  of    the  Department   of    Plant 
Pathology  and  a  few  years  before  he  retired  wanted  to  move  from 
Davis.      He   thought   that   this  would  be   a  good  opportunity    to  do 
something  worthwhile  so  he  accepted  the  appointment  as   director 
of    the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Agricultural   Research   and  Extension 
Center.      I   also   gave  him   the   title   of  an  assistant    director   of 
the  Agricultural   Experiment   Station  and  he  became  a  part  of  my 
administrative    counsel. 


Under  Bill's   direction  the  center  functioned  pretty   well   as 
a   unit.     Bill  was   a  vigorous  administrator,   a   person  who 
perceived  the  importance   of    the  program    in  the  area.      He   stepped 
on  a  few  toes  and  irritated  a  few   people   because  he  had  no 
tolerance    for   unproductiveness  and  slovenliness.      But   he  gave  it 
a    good    deal    of  visibility. 

Lage:  How   did  he  do  with   the  local   community? 

Kendrick:      They   thought  he  was  fine.      He  met  with  them  regularly,    and  he  was 
sympathetic   to  their  needs,    and  they   perceived  that   the 
University  was  interested  in  their   problems.      The  irritations 
were  from   the  University   people  whom   he  was  trying  to  push  and 
direct   into    productive   activity. 


260 


Lage:  People  on   the   staff. 

Kendrick:      On  the  staff.     But  I  have  to  give  Bill  a  lot  of  credit.      We 

haven't  had   that   kind   of  vigororous  leadership  for    this    program 
since   his   retirement.       The  last   director   of    the  center   didn't 
work  out  very  well,   and  he  has   resigned.      The    center  is  now    run 
by   a  committee. 

Lage:  [laughs]    The  ubiquitous   committee. 

Kendrick:      The  ubiquitous   committee.      The  local   academic  staff   in  both 
extension  and  research  have  agreed  to  follow    the  method   of 
designating  department   chairs   on  a   campus.      The  dean  usually 
consults  with  the  departmental  members  about  whom   they  might  like 
to  be    their  chair.      If   a  majority   of    the  people  agree   on  one   of 
the   dean's  suggestions,    that   person  is  likely   to   be    chosen  as    the 
chair.       If   the  majority   of    the  people   say,    "Under  no 
circumstances  would  we  work  with  that   person,"  the    chances   are 
pretty   slim   that   the  dean  would  appoint   that   person  because   it's 
rather  crucial   to  have  somebody  as   the  leader   of   a   department  who 
has   the  respect   and  support   of    the  membership  of   the  department. 
So  that's   the  way   in  which   the  academic   unit  at   Kearney   is   being 
administered   presently. 

The  manager   of    the  local    field  station  has  a   busy   agenda   of 
his  own,   just  keeping  the  management   of    the    property  and   the 
crops   going.      That  person  receives  a   certain  amount   of    public 
attention  by   the   nature   of   his   position.      At   Kearney    that    person 
is   Fred  Swanson,    who  is  a  capable  person  and  who  cooperates  well 
with  the  academic  chair.      Now,   just  to  complicate   the   picture,    we 
have   the  regional   director   of   Cooperative  Extension  also  located 
at  Kearney.      The  regional   director   of    all    the    Cooperative 
Extension  programs   in  the   central    San  Joaquin  Valley  and  the 
central   coastal  region  is  Bill  Hambelton.      So  we  have   three  admini 
strative  people  on  the  committee  who  have  administrative  responsi 
bilities  for   the  activities   of    the   center,    and   in   the  Valley. 

Following  Bill  Hewitt's  retirement,    I   perceived  that  having 
three   people  with  split  responsibilities  was  an  impossible  way   to 
administer,    so   I   made   an  impossible  assignment   to  one   person, 
[laughs]      Andy  Deal,    who  was  an  extension  specialist  in 
entomology,    located  at   the  Kearney   center,    was  made   the  regional 
director   of   Cooperative  Extension,   and   I   decided  to  appoint   him 
director   of    the  field  station  and  director   of    the  Kearney 
Agricultural    Center  in  addition.      So  he   bore   the   brunt   of    being 
administratively   responsible   for   three   diverse   activities  and  ran 
himself   ragged.      He   did  a  very   credible  job   of   trying  to   keep   all 
this   coordination  going,    but  he  had  a  very   different   personality 
than  Bill  Hewitt.      Bill  was  very   blunt  and  candid  about   things. 
and  Andy   tended  to  not   disagree   or  be   disagreeable,    and  so    there 
was  a   different   kind   of  leadership  in   that   era. 


261 


Kendrick:      When  Andy   retired  we  looked  for  another  Bill   Hewitt    type  and 

found  him,     [laughs],    and  he  quickly   alienated  a  lot   of    the  people 
whom  he   should  not  have — not  on  purpose;    he  was  just   a  misfit. 
So  then  by   mutual    agreement   he  stepped  aside.      And  now   we're  back 
to  the  administration  by   committee.      I   think   that's  not 
necessarily   how    it  will  ultimately  be  resolved,    but  my  successor 
is   going  to   see  how   it  functions   before  he  makes  another  move. 


The  Future  of   Cooperative  Extension:      Regional   Centers? 


Kendrick:      In  the  long-term   plan,   we  have   two  other  agricultural   centers 
that  we  were   trying  to  bring  into  being.      One  is  in  Imperial 
County,    where  we  had  hoped  to  locate   both  extension  and  research 
activities  at  the  Meloland  Field  Station  to  serve  Imperial  Valley 
and   desert  agriculture  in   general.     We  had   planned  to  move   the 
Imperial    County    Cooperative  Extension  staff   to  that  center. 

That   plan  ran  into  some  political   problems  with   the   county 
board  of   supervisors.      County-based  Cooperative  Extension  must   be 
supported  by  county  budgets,    and  we  had  several  members   of    the 
board  of    supervisors  who  were  unenthusiastic  about  financially 
supporting  Cooperative  Extension  at   a   university   facility. 

Lage:  What  were   they   afraid  of? 

Kendrick:      Well,    in  the  first   place.    Imperial    County   was  extremely  poor. 

It's  in  one   of    the   depressed  areas   of   California,    and  it   really 
didn't  have  much  money   left  to  make  any   long-term  commitments  to 
non-mandated  programs,    but  the   concept   of   county  support  is 
essential    for  Cooperative  Extension.      There  was  a   particularly 
irate  member  of   the  board  of  supervisors  who  really — I   think   if 
the   truth  were  known — wanted  the  location  of   Cooperative 
Extension  and  the  agricultural   commissioner  at  a   center  located 
in  a  different   place,    somewhat  removed  from   the  University  of 
California. 

The  University   of   California  is  not  an  endearing  institution 
to  everybody   in  the   state;    it's  regarded  as   arrogant  in   some 
places  and  irresponsible  in  others,    and  they   cite  evidence    that 
sustains   their   points   of  view.      So   that   Imperial   County 
Agricultural    Center,    I   think,    is   still  up  in  the  air.      The 
Cooperative  Extension  personnel  in  Imperial   County   are  now 
located  in  old  county   buildings,    and  whether   or   not   they   get 
moved  is   not  very   soon  to   be  resolved.       It's  one   of    the    problems 
I   left   my   successor. 


262 


Kendrick:      The  other  area  where  we  were  trying  to   develop   the   concept    of   an 
agricultural    center  was  with   the  USDA    [U.S.    Department   of 
Agriculture]    in  the  Salinas   area.      We  are   pursuing,    I   think 
still,    without   bringing  it   into  being,    an  agricultural    center   for 
the   central    coast.      Not  just  for   Monterey   County,    or   not  just   for 
the  Salinas  Valley,    but   the  whole   coastal    area,    which   has   an 
agricultural   characteristic   of   its   own.      The  USDA  has   a  research 
center  located  in  Salinas   that   gives  attention  to  lettuce 
breeding  and  some  agricultural   mechanization   studies.      They   have 
a   nice   facility   there,    and  we  were  negotiating  with  them   for   the 
location  of   a  University  operated  field   station  and   the   Monterey 
Cooperative  Extension  program   at   the   same  location.      Such   a 
development  would  be  identified  as  an  agricultural   research  and 
extension   center   for    the   central    coast   region  of    California. 

Lage:  You  worked  with  USDA,    then? 

Kendrick:      Yes;    we  were  negotiating  with   them   on  that  concept.      That  still 
is   possible,    in   my  judgment,   but  it   kind   of   depends   upon   the 
status   of    the   economic  picture.      There's  a  lot   of   willingness, 
but  there  has  to  be   some  accommodation  over  jurisdiction.      That 
always   rears   its  head,    about  who  controls,    or  who's   going  to  be 
in  charge.      So  just  about  the   time  you  get  all    the   ducks  in 
order,    the  USDA  changes  its  local   leadership,    and  we  have   to  go 
through  negotiations   all   over  again.      But  it's   my  view    that    these 
regional   centers  are  apt   to  be   ultimately  viable,    and  there  will 
be   more   of    them,   and   they  will   be  largely   staffed  by  extension. 
I   think  extension's   role  in  each   county   will  become  diminished  as 
the  budgets   become  more   difficult   to   be  achieved,    and  the 
problems   that  extension  will  address  will  be  really   more  global 
and  more   diffuse  than  specific  how-to  kinds   of  questions   that 
have  been  the   traditional    menu  of    extension  activities.      How    soon 
that  might  happen,    I   don't   know,    but    I  really   believe   that 
extension's   future   is    going   to  be    sustained  only   if   they 
aggregate  themselves  into  regional   areas  rather   than   county- 
centered  offices. 

The  downside   of    that  regional    organization  is   that  you  lose 
local   support.      So  one    should  not  just   ignore   that    downside 
issue,     unless  you're   prepared  to  support   the  regional   centers 
from  some  other  source — if  you  cut   back  and  have  it   supported 
through  your   federal    and  state  funds   in  a  way   that  compensates 
for   the  losses   that  you're   going  to  achieve   by   moving  out    of    the 
local    situations. 


263 


Integrated   Pest  Management    Program 


A  New   Concept   of   Disease  and   Insect   Control 


Kendrick:      There  are   three   other   programs   I'd  like    to  cover  before  we   end 

this   session,    and   they   all   resulted  from  augmented  funding.      The 
reason  they   are  viable  is  because   they   did  receive   special 
appropriations.      They  are  the   Integrated   Pest   Management    [IPM] 
Program,    the  Wildlands  Research   Center,    and  the  Agricultural 
Sustainability    Program. 

Let's   go   back  to  the  IPM  program   first  because   it  represents 
an  attempt  to   promote  a   different   concept   of   disease  and  insect 
control,    a   changed  emphasis  from  what  had  been  the  traditional 
way  of  looking  at   control   on  a   piecemeal   basis   by   plant 
pathologists  and  entomologists.      The  integrated  pest  management 
term  was  introduced  by   the  entomologists  and  was  intended  to 
incorporate  biological   control    as  a   tactic   in  the   control    of 
pests.      It  was  a   perfectly   sound   concept   because  what   they 
intended  to  do  was   to  model   plant  growth  in  addition  to  studying 
insect  life   cycles,    a  fairly   new   concept  as  far  as  entomologists 
were    concerned. 

The  introduction  of    modeling  of   plant  growth  and  studying 
the   plant's   susceptibility  to   particular  kinds   of    damage   by 
insects  was   first   developed  most   completely  by  studying  cotton, 
cotton  insects,    and   cotton  insect    control.      By  modeling  and 
understanding  what   influenced  various   stages  of  cotton  growth  and 
when  the  bolls  and  the  blossoms  were  most  susceptible  to  attack 
by    insect   pests,    treatments   could  be    targeted  to  just   the 
susceptible  periods.      This  improved  information   did  much  to 
reduce   the  amount   of    insecticides  applied  to  plants  as  a 
protective  measure.      So  the  IPM   concept  was   beginning  to   develop 
as   a   practical    means  of   control    in  the  early   1970s. 

Lage:  Was  it  a  reaction  in   part  to   the  environmental    concerns,    or  to 

the  loss  of   pesticide   effectiveness? 

Kendrick:      Well,    both.      I   think  it  was   certainly   not  hindered   by   the 

concerns  about   contamination  of   the  environment.      Its  development 
was  made  possible  because  of   the   computer.      The  introduction  of 
computers  into  the  research  program  was  crucial.      With  the  amount 
of  information  accumulated  on  growth  of   plants  and  pests  and   the 
effects  of   factors   in  the  environment   such  as  temperature  and 
moisture  on  their  growth  and  development,    measured  as   often  as 
each   day    for   the  life  of   the  plant,   you  can  get  a  basement  full 
of   data   that  you   can't  handle  with  a  hand  calculator  and   a 
pencil.      With   the  introduction  of    the   computer,    you've   got  a 
capacity  to   store  that  information  and  regurgitate  it   in  a  way 


264 


Kendrick:      that  you  can  run   correlations  and  find  out  what   is   or  is   not 
significant.      Without   the  computer,    development   of   the  IPM 
program  would  have   floundered.      So   concern  for   the  environment. 
concern  for   toxics,    and  the  evident  loss   of    effectiveness   by   a 
number  of  widely  used  insecticides   because   of    the  resistance   of 
certain   insect    populations — all   congealed  at   the  right   time. 

The   concept  of  bringing  all    this  epidemiological   information 
together  for   analysis  was   certainly  not  a  new   concept — plant 
pathologists  had   done  it  most   of    their  lives.      When   I    described 
my   earlier  program    in  the  control    of   bean  root  rot,    I   think  I 
said  I  tried   everything  I   could   think  of   to  try   to   eliminate   bean 
root  rot — that  is,    change  varieties,    alter   planting  dates,    and 
apply   fungicides   to   the    soil — that's   all    IPM   too.      It's    bringing 
every    facet   of    information  to  bear   that  you  can  possibly 
accumulate  relative  to  the   plant,    the  insect,    or   the   plant 
pathogen,    and  see  whether   in  that  relationship  there's  a  weak 
link.      You  may   be  able   to  target   that  and  interrupt   the   sequence 
of    disease    or   insect    damage. 

Lage:  Does  it  tend  to  be  a  team  approach? 

Kendrick:      It  has   to  be   a   team   approach.      One   person  cannot   master   all   the 
specialities  required  because  you've    got   to  have    crop 
specialists,    plant   pathologists,    entomologists,    weed  control 
specialists,   together  with   perhaps   the  toxicologists  and 
biostatisticians  working   together. 

I  determined  that  we  really  needed  to  put   some  money   into 
this   program,    so  I  asked  some  well-established  entomologists  and 
plant   pathologists  to  design  an  IPM  program.      This   occurred  in  the 
early  1970s.     Nothing  useful   arrived  on   my   desk  in  terms   of   a   propo 
sal,    and  I  was   frustrated  as  well   as   disappointed  in  my  colleagues. 

I   concluded  that    I  had  asked   the  wrong   people  to   do   this 
job.      So  I   decided  that   I  needed  a   committee  of   young  people 
whose   careers  were  ahead  of   them  to  address   this   problem  and 
design  how    they    might  like   to  see   it   put   together.      I  appointed  a 
committee  headed  by  Andy  Gutierrez,    a   professor   of   entomology   or. 
the  Berkeley   campus   in  the  Division  of   Biological    Control.      He  is 
a   computer  expert  and  systems  analyst.     He   chaired   this   effort 
with   representatives  from   Davis,    Riverside,    and  Berkeley.      In  a 
short  period  of   time,    they   produced   a  very   useful  and  workable 
report.      It   became   the  basis   for   the  establishment   of   the  IPM 
program.      I  was  seeking  a   program   that   I   could   take   to   the 
legislature   and   request   funding  for   its   support. 

I  have  to   describe  Andy  as   irreverant  and  outspoken  in  his 
relationships  with  his   colleagues.      He  was   pretty   outspoken  about 
discrimination,   very  outspoken  about  what  he  thought  was   the 
second-class   citizenship   of    biological    control    people. 


265 


Lage:  So  he   came   out   of   a  biological    control    orientation? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      He  was   the  disciple   of   Robert  van  den  Bosch.      I   think  some 
people  were  surprised  that   I  asked  him   to   chair   the   committee, 
but   he   certainly   responded  in  great  fashion  to  the   charge.       I 
think  he  also   saw  an  opportunity   for    [laughs]    biological   control 
to  emerge   from    the  shadows  into  the  forefront   of   IPM.      But  he  was 
very  helpful   and  his   concept  was   sound. 

With  some  modifications.    I  then  went  forward  with  a 
proposal.      I  made  some  modifications   concerning   the 
representation  on  the  advisory   committees  and  technical 
committees,    all  of  which  was  screened  through  my  Administrative 
Advisory    Council.       I   talk  like   a  lot   of    this  was  all   done  by   me. 
That's   not    true — 

Lage:  Was   the  initial    idea  for   this  integrated  pest  management   program 

yours,    or  did  someone  else   come  forth — ? 

Kendrick:      Well,    as   I   say,    the  basic   concept   of    IPM  was  entomological.      It 
was  already  in  existence;    I  was  just   thinking  that   I  wanted  to 
broaden  it   into  a  UC  program   and   get  some  state  funding  behind 
it.      I  wanted  it   not  just  to   be  entomological,   but   I  wanted  it   to 
include   plant   pathology  and  weeds  as  well.      While  IPM  was 
conceived  as  an  insect  management   program,    I  knew   that   plant 
pathology   also  had  a   place   in  an  integrated  pest  management 
program.      If   I'd  had   the  opportunity   to   go  further  with  it,     I 
would  have  changed  the   terminology  so  that  it  would  have  been 
known  as  an  integrated  plant  health  program,    without  identifying 
a   particular  threat  to  plant  health.      But   the  nomenclature  was 
fixed.      IPM  was   the  wave  of   the  future,    and  I   caught   that  wave 
and  tried  to  ride  it. 


Developing  Budgetary    Support   in  the  Jerry  Brown  Administration 


Kendrick:      Well,    I  proposed  a   program  with  a  manager,    the    director   of    the 
IPM  program,    much  like  we  had  with  the  Kearney   Foundation  for 
Soil   Sciences.      We'd  had   that  experience,    and   since  it  was 
successful   we  wanted  to  set  IPM  up  with  the  same  level   of 
administrative  arrangement. 

So  we  went   to  the  governor  and  the  legislature — it  was 
during  the  Saxon  administration — requesting  a  five— year 
augmentation  of   our  budget   so  that  we  end  up  with  a  five  million 
dollar  annual   appropriation.     We   proposed   starting  with  a   couple 
of    a  million  dollars   to  get   it   off   the  ground. 

« 


266 


Kendrick:      Now,    I  recall   that   this   requested  augmentation  occurred  around 

the  time   I  was  having  trouble  with   the  legislature  about  allega 
tions  of  inattention  to  the   small  farmers,    discrimination  against 
Hispanic  employees,    and  farm  labor  displacement   by   mechanization 
research,    so   there  was   a  lot   of   unhappiness  in   that    body.      Along 
comes   this   proposal    to  augment   our  budget  to  pursue  an   IPM   program. 
Well,    much  to  my  surprise,    I  received  support  from   all  quarters   for 
this   program.      It  came  from   environmentally  concerned  organizations, 
it   came  from   the   chemical  industry,    and  it   came  from  agriculture — 
you  couldn't   have   asked  for   a  more  diverse   group  of    special   inter 
ests  to  come  together  to  support   this   program.      It  also   came  at   a 
time  when  the  Department   of   Food  and  Agriculture  was  faced  with 
increasing  difficulties  in  policing   the   use   of   agricultural    chem 
icals.       This  was   during  Rich  Rominger's   directorship  of    the  Depart 
ment   of   Food  and  Agriculture,   and  Jerry  Brown  was   the   governor. 

I  remember  meeting  with  representatives  of   both  the 
Legislative  Analyst's   Office  and   the  Department   of    Finance    during 
the  formation  of    the  governor's   budget,    and  we  were  receiving  the 
usual   comments  about,    "Why  do  you  need  additional   money   for   the 
program?"     I   said,    "Well,    it's  not  a   case   of   need  as  much   as  it 
is  a   case   of   urgency.      We'll   continue   to  work  in   this   program 
with   our   present   resources."     We  had  just   completed  work  and  had 
published  a   pear   pest  and   disease  manual.      It  had   taken  about   ten 
years  of   work  by  several   extension  workers  and  experiment   station 
people.      I   said,    "We   probably   can   cover  one   crop  about   every    ten 
years.      If   that's   the  way  you  want   this   program   to  operate,    we'll 
continue  to   do   so.      But   if  you  want  it  accelerated,    if  you  want 
us  to  cover  more  crops  as  we  propose   to  do,    then  it's  going  to 
take   this  amount   of  money."     That   tactic  really  worked.      It  was 
put   on  the  basis  of,   "I  don't  need  it,   but  you're  the  ones  who 
are  after  me  to  do  it,   so  if  you  want  me  to  do  it,  it  really  is 
going   to   require   some  augmentation  of    our   budget." 

Rich  Rominger  was  totally  supportive   of    the   program.      He 
knew    that  we  needed  alternative  means  of   addressing  the  insect 
and  pesticide   problems   of    the   state.      The  Department   of   Finance 
went  along  with   it  but    said  the  governor  would  have  to  decide 
whether  he  wished  to   support  it.      That's  when   I  had   the    brief 
exchange  with  Jerry  Brown  and  Rich  Rominger  at  a  luncheon  meeting 
in  San  Diego  at  which   the   governor  was   a  featured  speaker.      We 
had  a   three-minute  conversation  with  him,    in  which  he  asked  Rich 
if  it  was  an  important    program,    and  Rich   said,    "Yes,    it    certainly 
is.      Our  future  really   depends   upon  the  University   being  able  to 
do   effective  work  in   this   area."     And   the    governor    said,     "Okay, 
we'll   do    it."     That's   the  way    the  IPM  budget  was  launched  into 
the    political    process. 

Lage :  You  mentioned  different   interest   groups   that   supported  it.      Did 

you  or  your   staff   contact   the  lobbyists  for   the.se  interest    groups 
to  get  their  support? 


267 


Kendrick:      Yes.      When  we  were   designing  the   program,    the  Environmental 
Defense   Fund,    for   instance,    was   a   significant   group  that 
supported  it.      We  made   certain  that  they  were  aware   of  what  we 
weie   proposing.       They    didn't  have  input    in  the  design   of    the 
program  but  were  represented  later  on  the   policy  advisory 
committee,    which  was   created  to  permit  all  the  interested  parties 
to   stay   in  touch  with   the   program. 

Lage :  So  you  were  kind  of   bringing  in  a   new   support   group. 

Kendrick:      The  reason  that  broad-based  support  was   there  was   because  each   of 
the   diverse   groups   saw    that  the  program   supported  their 
individual    goals.      The  agricultural    chemical   industry   knew    that 
they   were  ultimately   going  to  have   to  have  a  justification  for 
the  use   of   agricultural    chemicals  in   controlling  pests  and 
diseases  in  a  more  enlightened  manner.      The  people  who  advocated 
no  use   of  agricultural    chemicals  in   the   control   of   diseases  and 
pests   perceived  that  integrated  pest  management  was  going  to 
result  in  a   program   that  would  replace   those   chemicals   by 
biological   control    methods.      The  people  who  were  concerned  about 
environmental  quality  expected  that  IPM  methods  would  result  in 
the  reduction  in  the  amount   of   chemicals  released  into  the 
environment.      We   proposed  to  study   first   those    crops  on  which 
there  was  a  high  usage   of   pesticides  to  see  if  we  could  reduce 
the   pesticide  load  in   the   environment. 

So   the  program   didn't  have  very   tough   sledding;    it   got 
pruned  back  a  little   bit  from  our   original   request   for   support. 
But   it  emerged  with  a  million  dollars  of   support,    and  that  was  a 
big  augmentation  for  the  agricultural  budget,   at  a   time  when  all 
the  other  noise   of   discontent  and  criticism   was  taking  place. 
The  IPM  was  proposed  at  just  the  right   time  to  obtain   the   broad- 
based  political   support   that  it   needed  to  be   successfully 
defended  in  both   the  executive  and  legislative   branches   of 
government.      It  was  well   designed  and  had  universally  acceptable 
goals. 

The   IPM   program  was  run  by  a  director.      Ivan  Thomason  was 
the  first   director,    and  Ivan  was   succeeded  by  Jim    [James   M.] 
Lyons.       Ivan  is  at  Riverside.      He  was  an  ideal   director   to 
develop   the   program.      Ivan  was   trained  as  a   plant   pathologist, 
but   his    professional   career   developed  as  a  nemotologist. 

Lage:  Did  you  appoint  these   people  with  advice  and  faculty   input? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      Everything  involved  advice   and  consent.      Ivan  was  a   natural 
choice  from   among  a  number   of  qualified  people.      I  won't    describe 
the   techniques  of   how   the  IPM  program  was  put   together,    but   it 
involved  a  lot   of   people  as  advisors,    and  an  advisory   committee 
for   each   crop  studied.      These   studies  have  resulted  in  some 
handsome  and  comprehensive   publications.      That's  one   of    the    best 


268 


Kendrick:      things   that  happened  with   the   IPM   program.      It   published  manuals. 
They're   called  IPM   manuals,    and  they're   probably   the  most   popular 
publications  we've   put   out   in   the  last    decade.      So  it  was  a    good 
success   story   and  a   model    to  follow. 


Wildland  Resources   Center 


Kendrick:      Now,    the  Wildland  Resources  Center  has  existed  on  the  books  for 
a  long   time.      I   think  Henry  Vaux,    Sr.,    originally   conceived   the 
need  and  put   it   together.      I   made    several   stabs   at   trying  to 
identify  and  sharpen  up   the   goals   of    the   program   by    getting  all 
interested  parties   together   to  put   together  a  defined  program. 
It  had  a  modest  annual   appropriation  of   $15,000   split   between   the 
Berkeley   and  Davis   campuses   that   didn't   permit   any    significant 
research   effort.      The   center  was    barely   functional. 

It  was  originaly  proposed,    I   think,    probably   at  an 
inopportune  time  as  far  as   the   budget  was   concerned   because  it 
came  when  we  were  suffering  from   proposed  budget  cuts   prior   to  my 
arrival   on  the  scene.      We   could  never   get   the   program   put 
together   in  a  way   that  was   sexy   enough   to  appeal   to  a  legislative 
group.      It  wasn't  a   crisis   kind   of  a   program — IPM  was  essentially 
a   response    to  a   crisis.      Wildlands — everybody's  for   them,    but 
nothing  easily  defined   seems  to   threaten  their  existence  in   the 
public's  mind. 

Lage:  It  was  a   popular  concern  in  the   seventies. 

Kendrick:      Yes,    but   they   didn't  have  a  well-organized   constituency.       Their 

problems   are   like   deferred  maintenance;    i.e.,    other   urgent   crisis 
problems  replace   them  in  the   budgets. 

So   I   really   couldn't  get  much   interest   internally   in  an 
augmented  wildlands  research  budget,    until  Harold  Walt  was 
appointed  chairman  of    the  State  Board  of   Forestry  at  the 
beginning  of    the  Deukmejian  administration.      (He  has  a   background 
from   Walt's   Drugs   here   in  Berkeley.)      He's   a  very   vigorous   and 
effective  politician  who   decided  that  he  wanted  to   do   something 
for   forestry    research.      He  was  politically  well   placed  with  the 
governor  and  very   persistent.      The  Department   of    Forestry  and   the 
State  Board  of   Forestry   organized  a  centennial   program,    a  two- 
year   program   of  laying  the    groundwork  for  a   significant 
augmentation  of    the  University's   and  the  Department   of    Forestry's 
programs  in  forestry  and  wildlands.      This  was  an  opportune   time 
for   us   to  join  this  external   political    influence   and   get 
something  in  our  budget  for   these   overlooked   programs.      That 
happened.      We   put    together   a   program   based  largely  on  some  of   the 
early   studies.      I  appeared  at   one   of    the   centennial   meetings   in 


269 


Kendrick:      Yosemite  with  Henry  Vaux,    Sr..    in  which   I   said   that   the 

University   was   prepared  to  address  these  needs,    that  we  certainly 
supported   the  augmentation  of    the   budget. 

Well,    the  long  and  the  short  of    this   is   that   President 
Gardner  wasn't  all    that  enthusiastic  about  funding   this   program 
at  this   time  because   of    some  other  University   priorities,    but 
Harold  Walt  was.      I  arranged  for  him  to  visit  with   the   President, 
where  he  pressed  his   point.      I  also  worked  with  Vice   President 
Baker,   our   budget   officer,   pointing  out  how   much   political 
support  and  interest   there  was   in  the  program,    and  how   much  good 
we   could   do  ourselves   by  having  a  visible   program   in   this   area. 
We   certainly   had  the  support   to  bring  it   through   the  legislature. 
I  knew  we'd  do  ourselves  more  harm   by  turning  our   back  upon  that 
support   than  we  would  by   accepting  it  and  placing  the  request   in 
our  budget.      So  it   got  into   the   budget,    and  it  was   supported. 

We   then  appointed  Robert  Callaham   director  for  the  Wildland 
Resources   Program,    a  former  USDA  Forestry  research   director,   on  a 
half-time   basis.      He  began  to  mobilize,    organize,    and  coordinate 
the  activities.      He  is   a  little  abrasive  with   people   under  him, 
but  he  certainly   is  a  vigorous   individual   who  has  entre  into  the 
total  resources  of    the  University   in  addressing  the   problems   of 
wildlands. 

Lage:  This  has  also   become  sort  of   a  granting  agency? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      It's   a    granting  agency.      Again,    making   grants   on  a 

specific,    relatively  short-term  basis,    so  we   don't   commit  funds 
into   perpetuity.      That  is  absolutely  essential   in  these   programs 
if   we're   going  to  keep   ourselves   current. 

Well,    I've  lost   track  of   exactly  what   the   status   of   it   is 
now.      I  know    that   this  was  the  first  significant  augmentation  of 
money   in  support  of  wildland  and  forestry   problems  in  a  long,   long 
time.      I   felt   gratified  in  being  able   to  bring  that   to  bear 
because  it  was   certainly  an  area   that   needed  attention,   and   I 
couldn't   light    the   spark  until   Harold  Walt   came  along. 

Lage:  Interesting,    especially   since  Henry  Vaux,    Sr.,    was   his 

predecessor    [as   chairman  of    the  State  Board  of   Forestry]  ,   and  he 
was  vitally   interested  in  forestry   research. 

Kendrick:      Yes.      Henry    is  a   dear  friend  of    mine,    and  one   of    the  most 

competent  elder  statesmen  and   professors   I've  ever  known  in  this 
area,    and  also,    as  you  mentioned,    a  former   chairman  of    the  State 
Board   of   Forestry.     But   I   think  Henry  would  be   the  first   to  admit 
that   he's   not    the  politician  that  Harold  Walt   is.      There  is  no 
doubt  in  my  mind  that  this  program  is  underway   today   because   of 
the  political    influence   that  Walt  was  able  to  exert,    particularly 
in  the  Governor's   Office  and  at   the  Department    of    Finance.       The 


270 


Kendrick:      Department   of   Finance  wasn't   all    that  enthusiastic   about   putting 
this  kind  of    money    into  wildland  research  when  they   had  other 
crisis  topics  in  need   of   money.      But  Harold   called  in  his 
political    chips   of    support   for   the  governor. 

I  didn't  kid  myself  for  one  moment    that  logic  would   prevail 
in  any   of    this.      I   had  to  be   ready   with   the  appropriate   program 
at   the  opportune   time  and   seize   the  opportunity  and  run  with  it. 
If  you're  not  ready   with   the  likes  of    an  IPM   program,    or   a 
wildlands  research  center,    or  a  mosquito  research   program,    or 
what  have  you,    when  the  political   snowball   is  set  in  motion,    then 
forget   it.      You're   not   necessarily   going  to   sell    programs   on  a 
logical   basis.      The  Agricultural    Issues   Center,    on  the   other 
hand,    was  a   program   proposal   based  on   the  logic   of   need.      I   think 
its  modest   funding  is  a  result  of   the  lack  of   overwhelming 
political   support.      If  agriculture  had   been  more  enthusiastically 
supportive   we   could  have   easily   doubled   its   state   support. 

Lage:  So   this   gets   back  to   the  question  on  this   sort    of    generalized 

outline    [for   the   interview    series]    on  how    the  mission  is   defined. 

Kendrick:      [laughs]      I   guess  it   does.      The  mission  is   defined  by   the 

external    environment,    to  a  large   extent,    and  the   capacity   of    the 
division  to  mobilize  and  to  respond  to  it.      And   the  only  way    I 
found  to  mobilize   it   is   to  put   money    into  a  program  leader's 
hands  and  let   the  leader   direct   the   program.      In  most    of    these 
program   initiatives  the  work  of  Lowell  Lewis,    my  assistant  vice 
president  and  director   of   the  Agricultural  Experiment   Station, 
was   indispensible.      He   carried  out   most   of    the  "leg-work" 
required. 


Sustainable  Agriculture  Program 


Serving  Small-Scale  and  Organic   Farmers   ## 


Kendrick:      The  last   program   I  want  to  talk  about   that   arrived  with  another 
political    opportunity    is   the  Sustainable  Agriculture   Program. 
It  came  into  fruition  at   the  very  end  of   my  administration.      It 
is  now,    as   I   understand  it,    perking  along  in   pretty   good   shape, 
but   the   program   initially   developed  largely   because   of   a  high 
level   of   criticism   that   the  traditional   programs  in  agriculture 
ignored   the   needs   of    this   group   of    participants   in  the 
agricultural   scene. 

Characteristic   of    representatives  of    this   group  are  very 
small   farmers,   farmers  of   crop  specialties  with  a  limited 
distribution.      Many   of   them   market   their  products  directly   in 


271 


Kendrick:      health-food   stores,    or  in  natural   food  outlets  in  regular 

supermarkets,    or   directly   at  farmers'    markets.      A  lot   of    them 
operate  in  response  to  the   needs   of   specialty   restaurants   that 
make   a   point   of   not   serving  food  that  has  any   identifiable 
chemical   additives   to   their    products. 

Lage:  So  they   are  organic  farmers? 

Kendrick:      The   organic  farming  enthusiasts  have  an  organization,   a   national 
organization.      The  most   renowned  representative   of    that  point   of 
view   is   the  Rodale   Farm  in   Pennsylvania.      The  Rodale   Press   is 
probably   the  principal   source   of   published  items  that  address 
organic    farming. 

Admittedly,    that  is   the  group  of   farm  people  in  California 
whom  our  extension   program   really   didn't    pay   a  lot   attention   to. 
Extension's   attitude   was   that  we're  available   to  help  if   they 
want   us,    but   if   they   don't   come  and   get   us,    why   that's   their 
problem.      We  did  have  an  aggressive  program   for  small   farmers 
which  included  an  information  center  and  we   also   staffed  our 
extension  program  with  several  small-farm  advisors — 

Lage:  Now,   were  these   programs  long-standing  or  initiated  during  your 

administration? 

Kendrick:      This  program  came  into  being  during  my  administration  when  Jerry 
[Jerome]    Siebert  was  the  associate   director   of   Cooperative 
Extension.      He  was  instrumental    in  developing  the  concept   of 
assistance  for  limited  resource  farmers  who  often  were  not 
literate  in  English.      It  was  implemented  in  response   to  the 
general   criticism   that  we  weren't   paying  enough  attention  to   the 
needs   of   the  small   farmer.      Also,    we  filled  these  small-farm 
advisors'   positions  with  bilingual   people,   who  were   not  just 
Spanish-speaking,    but  were  of   Hispanic  origin.      They    found 
themselves  working  with  agricultural   cooperatives  as  well  as 
people   struggling  to  set  up  farms   of   their  own  in  which  they   had 
some  independence.      So  it  wasn't  a   case   of   ignoring   those   needs; 
but   we  weren't  really   dealing  with   the  organic  farm   groups. 

Lage:  I  would  think  all   these   small   farmers  wouldn't   necessarily   be 

organic  farmers. 

Kendrick:      No,     they're   not.       They're   small   because    they're  economically 
incapable   of   starting  very  large.      Small   farming,    organic 
farming,    and  sustainable  agriculture  were  the  sources  of   another 
editorial    I  wrote    [California  Agriculture.   July-August,    1985],    in 
which   I   tried  to  point   out  just   the  point  that  you  were  making, 
that  the   program  was  not  a  synonym  for   the   organic  farming 
philosophy.       I   said  also   that  sustainable  agriculture  certainly 
was  not  a   program   that  I  thought  was  incompatible  with  what   I 
thought   the  agricultural    research   and  extension  program   at  the 


272 


Kendrick:      University  had  been  about  all    the   time.      We  were   not   interested 
in  developing  recommendations   that  were  going  to  result   in  the 
extinction  of   agriculture.      I   pointed  out   that   some  abuses  and 
misuses   in  agricultural    practices  had  resulted  in  environmental 
deterioration,    but   that  had  not   been  the   intention  of   all    the 
research.      I  also   suggested  that   organic   farming  had  to 
demonstrate  its  economic  feasibility  in   both   production  and 
marketing  before  it  would  become  a  generally  accepted  practice. 


Legislative  and   Public   Input   to   the   Program 


Kendrick:      Again,    some   of    our   biological   control   people  were  advocates  of 
this    program,    because   they're    generally    the   nonchemical 
proponents   of    agricultural    production.       Strong  interest    in   the 
program   developed  in  Senator    [Nicholas]    Petris's    office.       Senator 
Petris   is   one   of    three   members   of   the  Senate  Finance   Committee's 
subcommittee   that  reviews   the  University's   budget.      Senator 
Petris's    staff   was   quite    interested   in   the  University's   diverting 
their  funds  and   their  interest   into  what  was   called   "sustainable 
agriculture  programs,"  perceived  and  interpreted  another  way: 
nonchemical   farming. 

Well,     Senator   Petris's   interest   in  anything  the  University 
is   doing  is  not   to   be  ignored.      So  we   probably   gave   the   program   a 
good  deal    more  attention  than  we  would  have  ordinarily.      We  were 
asked  to  conduct   some  hearings  to  determine  what   the   need   really 
was.      Robert   Peyton  was  employed  by  Lowell  Lewis  to  hold  public 
hearings  and  listen  to  people   complain  about  what   the  University 
was   or   wasn't   doing  to  help   them. 

Lage:  These  were   Petris's  hearings? 

Kendrick:      No,    no.      These  were  conducted  by   us. 
Lage:  Was   this   something  new? 

Kendrick:      Well,    we  wouldn't   ordinarily   conduct    public  hearings,    in  that 

fashion.      It  was  a  new   twist   of  listening  to  a   client    group  who 
felt   that   they   were  disadvantaged  and  not   paid  attention  to.      We 
made  a   gallant   effort   to    do   so. 

Lage:  When  was  this? 

Kendrick:      It   was   done    in  '85.      This   procedure  was  encouraged  by   Petris's 
office.     He  was   more    than  just   casually   interested  in  our   doing 
that    sort   of    thing  and  encouraged  us   to   do   it. 


273 


Kendrick:      The  public  hearings  resulted  in  a  report  and  a  summary.     An 

external   committee  was   put   together  on  sustainable  agriculture, 
with  representatives   of   the   organized   groups  and   Senator   Petris's 
office.      Robert   Peyton,    as   I   said,    was   the  person  we  employed  to 
oversee  the   development   of   the   program,   and  he  was  just 
absolutely   the   right   person.       He  had  the  "patience   of  Job"  to   sit 
and  listen  to  the  many  witnesses.      Hearings  were  held  in  about 
four    different   locations  in  the   state.      Everybody    felt   that  he 
was  fair  and  would  listen  to  their   complaints  for  as  long  as   they 
wanted  to  express   them.      I  had  many,    many   hours  of   discussion 
with  Robert  and   said,    "Don't  turn  anybody   off.      We  want   to   give 
everybody   ample   time   to  voice    their  complaints."     Some  of   them 
were   kind   of   abusive  and   pretty  hard  to  listen  to.      But  he 
performed  with   good  humor   as  the  university's  hearing  officer. 

Lage:  It  was   a  multi-session  hearing? 

Kendrick:      That's   right,    and  it   was   all    transcribed   by    a   court   reporter. 

Well,    let  me   say  without   going  into  more   detail    that   the 
hearings   resulted  in  a   proposal    for  an  augmented  budget  for  the 
University's   Division  of  Agriculture  and  Natural   Resources   to 
conduct   a   program    in   sustainable  agriculture.      It  was  another 
case  where  we   persuaded  President  Gardner  that  it  was   politically 
advisable   to   include    it  in  the  University's  budget,    particularly 
since  Senator  Petris  was   going  to  impose  something  of   his   own  on 
us   if  we   did  not  propose   something  that  was  at  least  compatible 
with  our  existing  programs. 

We  also  had  an  internal   academic  advisory   committee,   which 
worked  quite  well  with  the  external   groups.      The  academic 
committee  was  charged  with  the  responsibility  of  designing  the 
program.      President  Gardner  accepted  my  recommendation,   and  it 
made   its  way   through   the  Department  of  Finance,    to  the  governor 
and   the  legislature,    and  was   sustained.      I'm   not   sure  just  how 
much  money  ultimately  was  appropriated  because  it  occurred  just 
at   the   time   that   I  retired.      I   think   the   proposal  was  for  about  a 
million  dollars.      At  least   that's  the  amount  we  were   talking 
about  at  the   time.      It   provided,    again,    for   the  employment   of   a 
director   of    the  program. 

Lage:  That   seems  to   be  an  essential   ingredient. 

Kendrick:     Yes,    in  the  environment   in  which  we  operate,    it  is.      These 
program   directors  are  responsible  to   the   director   of   the 
Agricultural   Experiment   Station,    so  even  though   the  director   has 
overall   responsibility   for  all   programs,   it  is  necessary  for 
somebody   to  give  full-time  attention  to  these  particular 
programs,    and  sustain  them,    and  be    concerned  about   them. 

Lage:  Now,    will   that  address   problems   of    small   farmers   overall? 


274 


Kendrick:  Yes. 

Lage:  Not  just   organic. 

Kendrick:  Yes.    all   small   farmers.       It's  not  just  an  organic   fanner   program. 

Lage:  But  you  will   address   those   needs   too? 

Kendrick:      Certainly.      It  has  an  advisory   committee  with  external   membership 
which   sits  in  judgment   of    the   program  and  its  research.      It   also 
has  an  internal    faculty   and  extension  advisory    group,    who   try    to 
keep   the   program  academically  acceptable.      A  lot   of    things   that 
the  people   on  the  outside    think  the  University   ought   to  do   are 
just   not  appropriate   to  University  activities  and  ought   to   be 
done  by   somebody   else.      You  have   to  be   certain  that   sort   of 
distinction  is   understood  and   carried  out;    you   can't   allow    the 
University's   program    to  become  less   than  University    stature.      The 
misunderstanding  of   that  incites  some  of   the   comments   that   the 
University    is   arrogant.       It's   not   arrogance    at  all;    it's   trying 
to  keep   the   program  in   the   right    direction,    in  the  right    context. 

Dr.    William  Liebhardt  was  appointed  director  of   this 
program.     He  was  formerly   director   of   research  at  Rodale,   and  he 
came   through   a  search   and  screening  process  that   is  typical   of 
our  usual  ways  of   seeking  the  most  qualified   person  to  fill    a 
position.      I   think  this  appointment  went  a  long  way   to 
demonstrate  to  our  skeptics   that  our  commitment  to  this   program 
was    sincere. 

That's  the  last   special   program   that   came   along  that   I   had 
anything  to   do  with.      I  was   pleased  to   be  able   to   shepherd  it 
through   the  University   budget   process,    and  help  Robert   deal    with 
the  issue,   and  also  help  him   interpret   seme   of    the   traditional 
concerns  of    the  faculty   and  staff   that  he  would  encounter  frcm 
time   to   time. 


275 


XIII     ADMINISTRATIVE  ADJUSTMENTS   TO  UNIFY  THE   DIVISION 


A  Historical   Overview 


[Date   of    Interview:      October  29.    1987]    ## 


Kendrick:      We  were   going  to  talk  today  about   the  administrative  adjustments 
that  were  made   during  the   course  of   my   tenure  as  the  vice 
president,   and   there  were  a  number   of    them. 

Lage:  Just  let  me   put   the  date   on  here:     October  29.    1987,    our   tenth 

session.      Okay,    now,    you're   ready   to    start;  you   don't    need   a 
question  from  me. 

Kendrick:      All   right.      The  division  was   organized  when  I  moved  up  into  the 
vice   presidency  in  April   of  1968  with  a   director   of    the 
Agricultural   Experiment   Station  and  a  director  of  what  was  then 
known  as  Agricultural  Extension    [later,    Cooperative  Extension]. 
There  was  a   special    assistant   to  the  vice   president,    Douglas 
McNeill  by  name,    and  the  usual  administrative  assistants,    plus 
some  Agricultural   Experiment  Station  and  Cooperative  Extension 
personnel  keeping  track  of  financial   matters  and   the   project 
system. 

That  was   satisfactory    initially,    but   the   thing  that   I 
noticed  over   time  was   that  the   two  directors  had  most   of   the 
action. 

Lage:  The  directors  of    the  experiment   station  and  extension? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      They  were   the  operating  officers   of   their  respective 
organizations.      The  role  of   the  vice   president  was  one   of 
coordination  and  policy  review  and   overall   responsibility   for   the 
total   program.      And  that  was   the  most   difficult   thing  to  do.      I 
think   that   probably   characterized   the   principal    challenge   to   the 
chief   administrative   officer  for   the  division,    in  those   days  as 
well   as  today.      The   nature   of    the   two  activities   of   research  and 


276 


Kendrick:      extension  are  somewhat   different,    and   their   physical   locations 
are  different.      It   presents  a   problem   of    how   you  operate   a 
unified   program  with   several    different   functions. 

Lage:  From    the  beginning,    were  the  two  supposed  to  be   coordinated?      Is 

that   the   goal? 

Kendrick:      I    don't   think   it  was  ever   consciously   designed  to  be    so.      Both 
research  and  extension- type   programs  were  performed  by   the   same 
people  back  in  the  days  of  Hilgard.*     The  reason  that  Cooperative 
Extension  was  established  in  the  first    place  was  to  have  a 
program   to  introduce   into  practice   the  knowledge   that  was  being 
accumulated  through  research  efforts  by   people  in  the  experiment 
stations.      There  are  various  ways  of    organizing  state   programs   so 
that   that  is   brought  about.      Cornell    coordinates   their   research 
and  extension  programs   by   giving  their  professors  part-time 
extension  appointments,    thus  funding  part   of    their  appointments 
by    an  extension  budget.       By   that   procedure   there's   pretty    close 
integration  of    the  activities    of   extension  and   research. 

California   is   organized  quite   differently.      B.    H.    Crocheron 
was  brought  to  the  University,    I   think  in  about   1919.    to   set   up 
an  extension  program.      It  was   designed  to  have  a   separate   staff 
and  be  a  separate  operation,    so   that   the  regular  members   of    the 
University's   faculty   did  not  have  extension  appointments  in 
addition  to   their  research   or    teaching  appointments. 

There   are   advantages   to   both   organizations.       I   don't   think 
that  the  New  York  system   is  necessarily   better   than  the 
California  system.      On   paper,    it   suggests   that   there   is  a   built- 
in  mechanism  for  close   coordination,    but  as   I   studied   the 
organization  in  thinking  about   some  possible  adjustments  of 
California's   system,    it   seemed  to  me   that  it  wasn't   functioning 
any    more  effectively   than  our  own  system.      The  principal 
deficiency  of   the   Cornell    system   is   that   the  extension   personnel 
located   in  the  counties  are   paid  by   county    funds.       So   that   there 
is  a  flaw  in  the   central  leadership's  ability   to  exercise 
appointment   authority   over   the  county   people   and  to  treat   them   as 
fully  integrated  members  of   the   unit.      He  who   controls   the  purse 
strings   of    the  budget  really   controls   the  destiny   of   the  program 
and   the   people,   and   therefore   there  was   a  lack   of   central    control 
in  New   York — which  let  local   units  exert   their  will  over  what 
might   be   seen  as   being  in   the   best   interest   of    the   total   program. 

Lage:  I  wondered  if   they   had  a   problem   getting  the  professors  to  carry 

out   that   portion  of    their  appointment  as  extension   service. 


*  Eugene  W.    Hilgard  was  founder  of    California's  Agricultural 
Experiment   Station  and   dean  of    the   College   of  Agriculture.    1888- 
1904. 


277 


Kendrick:      Well,    I   think   they   probably   did.      As   I  understood  it,    the   amount 
of    time  a   professor   spent   on  extension- like  activities  was 
determined  after   the  fact,    rather   than  before   the  fact.      In  other 
words,    there  was  an  accounting  made   at  the  end  of   the  year  by 
asking  the  individual   professors,    "How   much   time   did  you  spend  in 
extension  work  this   past  year?",    and  then  a  guesstimate  was  made 
relative  to  that   time,    and  that  became   the   basis   of    time   spent   on 
extension   programs. 

So  I  was  not  really   impressed  that  that  system  was  operating 
as   efficiently  as  it  appeared  to   be  on   paper,    even  though  it 
showed  a   close   paper   coordination  between  research  and  extension 
because  it   involved   the    same   people   doing  both   those   activities. 
In  California,    I   think  we  built  a  stronger  extension  program  by 
having  a   separate   organization  of   people,    and  having   the 
specialists  in  extension  added  to  the  staff  because   they   had  some 
special   expertise  in  a   particular   discipline.      Those   individuals 
are  now    placed  in  the  departments  of   their  discipline  and 
provide   the  linkage  between  the  experiment   station  activities 
and   the  advisors  located  in  the  counties.      All   extension 
personnel   are  funded  and   budgeted   through   the  University's 
budget,    so   there  was  never  any   doubt   in  anybody's   mind  that 
county-based  Cooperative  Extension   people  were  University   of 
California   employees.      That,    I   think,    was  a  very   wise   decision, 
in  the  early  establishment    of   extension. 

But   the  drawback,    and  there  are  drawbacks  and  deficiencies 
in  every   organization — nothing  seems  to   be   perfect — is   that   the 
organization  tends   to  function  as  an  individual    organization,    and 
coordination  of   programs  occurs  more   by  luck   than  by   design. 
Cooperative  Extension  initially   was  run  by  a  very   dominating  yet 
benevolent  administrator,    B.    H.    Crocheron,    who  established  it  as 
a  quality   organization.      It  almost  resembled  a  paramilitary 
group.      People  in  extension  were  quite   proud  to   be  a   part   of   it 
and  very    loyal    to  their  director.      They    felt   somewhat   special; 
Crocheron  kept  them  on  their  toes   because  he  had  no  tolerance  for 
mediocrity   or  slovenliness.      So  when  the  chief   came  visiting,    it 
was  almost  like   a  military   inspection. 

Lage :  This  would  be  when  he  visited  the  county   offices? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      That  military  aura  diminished  with   the   subsequent 
administrators,    Earl    Coke   and  George  Alcorn. 

Lage:  Coke  must  have  had  a   difficult   place  to  fill,    succeeding  someone 

with   that   much   of   a  personal   hold  on — 

Kendrick:      Well,    I   think  he   did,   but  Earl   Coke   came   closest  to   being  the 

ideal   successor  because   he  was  a   strong,    dominating  person  in  his 
own  right.      He  had  some   different   ideas  about   the   organization, 
but   there  was  never   any   doubt   that  Earl    Coke  was   the  director. 


278 


Kendrick:      He  went   on  to  other  responsibilities,    including  one  as  an 

assistant   secretary    of    agriculture.      He   took  leave   from    his 
directorship  of   Cooperative  Extension  for  about   a  year  and  a 
half.      During  that  period,    Cooperative  Extension  functioned  with 
an  acting  director.      The  acting   director  at   that    time  was  Wayne 
Weeks. 


The  Link  to  the  U.S.    Department   of   Agriculture 


Kendrick:      But    that's   beyond  my   history.      Let's   go   back  to  what   I   am   leading 
up  to — in  trying  to  lay   the   groundwork  for   correcting  what    I 
perceived  to  be.    if   not  a   problem,    at  least  a   challenge    to  bring 
Cooperative  Extension's   planning  process   into  a   closer  link  with 
the  experiment   station.      The  director   of    the  experiment   station 
was  Clarence  Kelly,    and  the  action  of    the  experiment   station  was 
really   on  three  campuses,    where  it  was  administered  by   the  deans 
who  were  also  associate   directors   of   the  experiment    station. 

One  also  has   to  realize   that  both  Cooperative  Extension  and 
the  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  have  funding  and   program 
linkages  with  the  United  States  Department   of   Agriculture.      So 
they   are   partially   federally  funded  activities,   and  from   the 
USDA's    perspective,    those   two   operations  at  land-grant 
institutions   are  agencies   of   a  federal   program.      The   directors 
are  recognized  as  officers  of    the  USDA  and  the  secretary   of 
agriculture   gives  tacit  approval   of   their  appointments.      It's   a 
formality,    but    they   are  recognized  as  agents  of    the  USDA.      That's 
necessary  for  them  to  have   the  authority   to  administer  and  handle 
the  federal    funds   that   come  into  the  respective   programs. 

Well,    that   describes  a  relationship   between   the  USDA  and   the 
directors   that  is   clearly  understood  by   the  USDA  and  most   of   the 
directors   but    generally  not   understood  by   the  University,    that 
is,    to  an  extent   not  understood  or  at  least  accepted  by 
University  officers  such  as  vice   presidents  and  presidents  who 
have   primary    responsibility    for   their  local    institutions' 
programs. 

The  chief   administrative  officer  for  agricultural   programs 
at  land-grant   institutions   carry   different   titles.      There   are 
vice   presidents,    deputy   vice   presidents,    and  by    far   the  most 
widely  used  title   of   dean.     Each  of   the   people  who  hold  these 
titles   bears   the   responsibility    for  both   extension  and  research. 
But   there  is  no   official   relationship   between   these   overall 
administrators   and   the  U.S.    Department    of    Agriculture. 


279 


Kendrick:      That  manifested  itself   in   California  by   the  fact   that   the  USDA 
corresponding  offices  for  extension  and  research  communicated 
directly  with   the   directors  rather   than  with   the  vice   president. 
I  learned  about   federal    matters  only   if  my   directors  wanted  to 
tell   me  about   them. 

Lage:  How    much   of   the  work  of   these  two  organizations  was  funded  by  and 

overseen  by   the  USDA?     Was   this   a  major   portion  of   it? 

Kendrick:      Well,    not  in  California.       It  varies  from   state   to  state. 
California   does  not  have  a  large  USDA-funded  extension  or 
experiment   station  program.      About   20   percent   of   Cooperative 
Extension's    budget   is    derived  from  USDA's    Smith-Lever   funds,    and 
about    five   to  seven  percent   of    the  experiment   station's   budget   is 
composed  of   the  USDA's  Hatch  fund.      Hatch  funding  for   research  is 
allocated  to  faculty   of    the   three   campuses   through  a  project 
system.      Faculty   design  projects  and  submit   them   through  the 
channels  of   the  experiment   station  administration  for   approval. 
Ultimately   the  USDA's   office   of   Cooperative   State   Research 
Service,    which   is  responsible  for   the  administration  of   the  Hatch 
Act  must  approve   or   disapprove   these    proposed   projects. 

Once    their  approval    is   given,    an  allocation  can  be   made    to 
those   projects  from   the  Hatch  fund,   which   comes  to   the  University 
as  a  bulk  grant   fund.      The  amount   of    the  grant   is   based  on  a 
formula   that   is  really   not  in  California's  favor,    because  it   is 
based  on  the  relationship  of    the  number  of  farm  units,    and  rural 
population  versus   the   urban   population.      We   don't  fare  very   well 
in  that  formula  because   of    the  distribution  of   our  rural   and 
urban  populations. 

Smith-Lever  funds   for   Cooperative  Extension  are  not 
allocated  by  a   project   system  but  are   commingled  with   state 
appropriations,    unless  they   are  appropriated  for   special   programs 
such  as   urban   gardening,    or  farm   safety,    or   the  nutritional 
education  program.      The  regular  Smith-Lever  funds  are  allocated 
to   states  on  the  basis   of   a  formula,    which,    again,    did  not  favor 
California  in  particular.      They   support   the   overall   program    in 
extension   through    salary    allocations. 

The  USDA   annually   received  from    the  University's   Cooperative 
Extension  organization  a  plan  of  work,    which   described  by 
standard  categories  what  had  been  accomplished  during  the  year 
and  what  was   proposed  for  the   coming  year.      That   plan  of  work 
would  be   reviewed  by   the  Office   of    the  Extension  Service  in  the 
USDA,   who  after  commenting  about  the   proposals,   would  ultimately 
sign   off   and  approve   it. 

So  there  were  two  federal  agencies  acting  on  the  programs  of 
two  agricultural  units  in  the  University  of  California,  and  there 
was  no  evidence  that  the  USDA  Office  of  Cooperative  Research  and 


280 


Kendrick:  their  Extension  Service  Office  ever  had  any  common  goals  or 
common  discussions  about  the  state's  research  and  extension 
programs. 

Lage:  So.    in  Washington  the   two  were  not   carefully   coordinated? 

Kendrick:      That's    correct.      At   the  federal   level    the   organization  was 

constructed  in  a  way   that  kept   the   two   operations   separate.      In 
contrast,    we  had  University  officers  who  were   charged  with 
coordinating  the  two  activities. 


Improving  Budgetary   Control   over   "The   Provinces" 


Kendrick:     Well,    other  states,    I  had  noticed,   organized  their   programs  with 
deans  who  had  overall   responsibilities  for   teaching,    research, 
and  extension.      These  individuals  would   carry    simultaneously    the 
titles  of    dean  and  directors  of   both  units,    so   that   one   person 
had   the  responsibility   for   all    three  functions.       That 
administrative  maneuver  solved,    at  least  administratively,    the 
communication  problem  between  Washington  and  the  local 
institution.      The  operational    responsibilities  would  then  be 
assigned  to  an  associate   director   or  an  associate    dean. 

When  I   took  office   I  was  not  aware  of   these  different 
arrangements,    but   I  recognized  that    something  needed  to   be   done 
to  improve  our   planning  and  budgeting.      The  first  administrative 
change   I  made  was  in  January   of   1970,    when   I  added  another 
special    assistant   to  my   staff   named  Russell   McGregor.      I  had 
become  acquainted  with  Russell   through  some  national   activities 
that   I   had  for   the  USDA  in  serving  on  a  committee  to  review    the 
research   program   of    the   Cooperative  Research   Service.      Russell   at 
that   time  was  a  budget  examiner  for   the  federal  Bureau  of   the 
Budget,   which  ultimately  became  the  Office   of   Management  and 
Budget,    OMB.      Russell  was   the  examiner   in  that  budget  office 
whose  assignment  was   the  USDA's  research  and  extension   program. 

He   seemed  to  be  what   I  was  looking  for  because  he  had  a  keen 
analytical   capacity  and  a   planning  background,    and  I  thought   the 
division  needed  that  kind  of   administrative   assistance.      He 
willingly  resigned  from  his  federal   post  and  came  out  to  assume 
the   planning  and  analysis    role  for   the  division. 

Lage:  Could  you  give  an  example   of    the   specific   problems   that   there 

were  that  made  you  see   the  need  for  these  changes? 

Kendrick:     Well,    I'm  not  sure  that  I  know    of  any   particular   difficulty, 

except   that   I   felt   the  responsibility    to  plan  effectively   and  to 
develop  a   budget   that    could   be   described  in   program    terms. 


281 


Kendrick:      Cooperative  Extension  was  not  all   that  out   of   step  with  what 
really  needed  to  be   done,    but   there  was  no  evidence    that   its 
budget   development  and  planning  were  related  to   the   programs   that 
described   the   division's   activities.      The   national    organization 
of  experiment   stations  had  just    developed  a   classification   system 
because   they   needed  a  way    to  file  and  retrieve  the  information 
from   the  many  research  projects   being  conducted  in  all    of    the 
states.      They   also   needed  this   system    in  order   to  account  for   the 
expenditure   of  funds  at  various  levels   of    program   aggregation. 
The  system   adopted  was  called  the  CRIS  system,    Current  Research 
Information   System.      That   came   along  about   1966. 

So   there  was  a   major   effort  to  get  all  the  projects 
classified  in  the  new   system.      The   CRIS   system  enabled  us   to 
describe   the  amount   of    research   effort  going  into  pest  and 
disease   control,    or  in  agricultural   production,    or  in  water 
resource   studies,    or   in  nutrition  and  the  like.      Those   are  just 
the   broad   categories.      I  felt   that  in   being  able  to  analyze  where 
we  were  allocating  our  resources,    we  needed  someone   to  aid  in  the 
planning  of  future   program  changes  as  we   sought  to  meet   new 
challenges. 

Lage :  It    sounds   as  if  you  were  getting  better   control    over   the  budget. 

Kendrick:      Right.      That  was   the   goal.      Russ  had   been   doing  that   all    the    time 
for   the  Office   of   Management   and  Budget  as  far  as  agriculture  was 
concerned,    so  he  had  a   good  background  for   the  assignment   I   gave 
him. 

That  effort  was  not  resisted  by   our   organization;    in  fact, 
they   cooperated   pretty  well.      Russ  was   a  little  aggressive,   and 
he   tended  to  attempt  to  pry   information  from  campuses  that  they 
weren't  all   that  willing  to   share  with   the   systemwide 
administration.      It's  always  a  struggle  between  a  systemwide 
administration  and   the  operating  units   that    I  refer  to  as   "the 
provinces."     It's   kind  of    a   tug-of-war  between  the   two. 
Systemwide  usually  wants  more  information  that  the   campuses   don't 
want   to  share,    necessarily,   because   if   they   share  it  with 
headquarters   then  they   lose   some   of    their   power  and   control.      The 
same   situation  exists  at   state  level — the  more  state  funding  that 
goes   into  local   school   districts,    the  less   prerogative  local 
school   districts  will  have  because   the  state  will  want  to  know 
how    they're   allocating  and  spending   state   funds. 

What   I've   described  is   not   unique    to  the   division;    it's  just 
human  nature  and   the   nature   of   organizations.       I'm   sure  it   exists 
in  private   enterprise   also.      But    it's  necessary   to  get  a  handle  on 
it   because   the   people  held  responsible  for  reporting  these   things 
are  in  central    administrations.      And  I  was   the  one  who  had  to 
testify  in  Sacramento  as   to   the  validity   of    the  expenditure   of 
state   funds    for    the  University's  agricultural   programs.       It 


282 


Kendrick:      wasn't   the    directors,    necessarily,    unless   I  took   them   along  with 
me   to  talk  about    programs   in   detail.      So  Russ  was  the  first 
change. 


The  Day    Committee; 
Resources   ## 


Coordinated  Planning  for  Allocation  of 


Lage:  This  was   still   while  George  Alcorn  was  head  of   Cooperative 

Extension? 

Kendrick:      Yes.    George   and  Kelly   were   the  directors  of    their  respective 

units.      Kelly  had  asked   the  late  Boysie   Day    [deceased  June   1988] 
to  come   from   Riverside    to  assist  him.      Boysie  up  to  that  time  was 
the  associate   director   of    the  experiment    station  at   Riverside.       I 
think   I   explained  all   that   in  an  earlier   session.      Kelly   needed 
some  assistance  in  managing  the  experiment   station.      He  was   not 
in  the  best   of    health  at  that   stage.      Boysie   came   to  Berkeley    ir. 
the  role  of  associate   director   of    the   statewide  experiment 
station  to   give  Kelly   a  helping  hand. 

If  you  recall   in  an  earlier   session,    I   said   I  had  inherited 
an  academic  planning  group,    which   produced  a   report   that   didn't 
go  anywhere   because   I   couldn't    get  any   response   or  interest   from 
the  campuses   due    to  a  number  of   administrative  changes  taking 
place  at  Riverside  and  Davis  at   the   time   the  report  was   issued. 
So  recognizing  this   deficiency,    and  at   the   strong  suggestion  of 
my  own  administrative   council,    made  up  of   the  new   deans  and 
directors,    I  asked  a   special    committee  to  produce  a  planning 
document.      I  asked  them  to  identify   in  the    program   structure   of 
the  CRIS   system  where  we  were  allocating  our   resources  and  advise 
me  where  some  adjustments   should  be  made  in  the  allocations  in 
the  future,    with   some  attention  to  timing  and  phasing  the 
proposed  changes  in  allocation.      That   committee  became   known  as 
the  Day   Committee  because   I  asked  Boysie  to  chair  the  effort.      I 
felt    strongly   that   I  needed  representatives  from   the  Berkeley, 
Riverside,     and  Davis   chancellors'    offices  in  that   effort,    because 
I  needed  their  commitment  to  any   plan  that  would  emerge  from   the 
work  of   the  committee. 

Lage:  So  this  was  kind  of   a  long-range   planning  for  research? 

Kendrick:      Yes.      It   turned  out  to   be   dominated   by   research   planning.       I  was 
really   more  concerned  at   that   point  with  the  planned  allocation 
of   the   positions  that  would  become  vacant  in   the  experiment 
station  over    time. 

Lage:  What   areas   they   should  be  hiring — 


283 


Kendrick:      Where  we   should  adjust  any   reallocations   if    that  was   called  for. 

Lage:  Did  you  mention  earlier   that   this  effort  was  related  to  the  world 

food   situation? 

Kendrick:      Well,    that   came   on  a  little  bit  later,    and  it  came  about  from   the 
early   flurry  about   the  hunger  in  the  world  and  at  least   a 
superficial   belief    that  what  we  needed  to  do  was  put  more  of   our 
resources  into  agricultural   production  activities.      The  world 
hunger   study   was  headed  by   Hal    Carter  and  resulted  in  a 
publication   called  The  Hungry  World.      That  activity  was   a  little 
later   than  the  Day   Committee  activity    I'm   talking  about.      But    the 
Hungry  World  report    certainly   turned  our  attention  to   the  fact 
that  we   didn't   need  to  overemphasize   the  production   research 
activities  of   the  experiment   station  because  there  were  more 
crucial    concerns  relative   to  the  distribution  of    existing  food 
reserves   than  a  lack  of   its   availability.      Furthermore,    the 
report   showed  that   there  was  a  lot  of   productive  capacity   that 
was  not  yet   being  used.      At  least   up  until   about   the  turn   of   the 
21st   century,    overemphasizing  production  in  the  United   States 
wasn't   called  for — what  was  needed  was  to  bring  in  some   new   land 
and  new    resources  and  improve   the  efficiency   and  use   of   existing 
resources  in   some  areas.      And  it   pointed  out   that,   with   the 
exception  of   Africa,    most   of    the  areas  were  potentially  good 
producers    of   agricultural    products. 

That,    in  fact,    has   been  the  case.      We  are   observing  a 
worldwide  increase  in   production  of  agricultural   products.      The 
use   of    modern  technology    is   not  unique    to  the  United   States, 
Canada,   and  Western  Europe  any   more.      These   techniques  have   been 
incorporated  into  the  agriculture  of    South  American  countries, 
also  in  the  Middle  East  and  some   other   countries   that  are 
potentially   good  producing  areas  for   agriculture.      So  the  United 
States's   problem   of  world  competition  in  its  agricultural   trade 
was    due    largely   to  the  fact   that   there's  a  lot   of   basic   grain 
supply   available  to   people  from   countries   other   than  the  United 
States,    Canada,    or   western  Europe.      That's   another    subject,    but 
it's  related  to  what  must   be   considered  when  you  are  engaged   in 
long-range    planning  for   agricultural    research. 

The   difficulty  of   planning  allocations  for  experiment 
station  personnel   was  also   complicated  by   the  fact  that  at  both 
Davis  and  Berkeley,   and  to   some  lesser  extent  at   Riverside,   we 
had   to   factor   in  the   teaching  needs.      Davis's   teaching  needs   with 
its  rising  student   population  almost   dictated   the   place  where  you 
could  allocate  your   future  resources,    because   of   the  fact   that 
you  had  to  cover   certain  subject   areas  which  were   not   necessarily 
the  most   crucial    areas  for  your   research   program.      So  you  had  to 
make   compromises  relative  to  the   allocation  of    those  resources, 
and  as  long  as   there  was  a   student   demand  or   a  student  load  for  a 


284 


Kendrick:      particular  kind   of   activity,    you  had  to   be   certain   that   those 

personnel    were  assembled  so   that   they   could  cover  and  teach   those 
kinds    of    courses. 

That  is  another   reason  why    the  chancellor   and  the  vice 
president  had  to  listen  to   the   pleas   of    the   dean,   who  had   the 
direct   responsibilities  of    responding  to  the  clamor  for  more 
resources  to   do   this,    that,    and   the   other   thing,    particularly   in 
the   teaching  area.      That  resulted  in  annual    meetings   at   campuses 
where  the   chancellors  and  I  listened  to   the    deans  make   their   case 
for   the  allocation  of    resources.      The  chancellors  and  I  would 
agree  to  agree  on  the   allocation  of  our  respective  resources — not 
always  agreeing  with   the  deans. 


Resistance  to  Reallocating  Positions   between   Campuses   or 
De  par  tme  nt  s 


Lage :  Is   there  any   specific   case   that  you  could  describe   to  show   how 

that  would  work?      Is  there  one  that  you  recall  where  you  had   this 
interaction  between  the  dean,    the  chancellor   and  yourself,    and 
how  it  was  resolved? 

Kendrick:      Well,    no  particular  case.      The  thing  that   I   discovered  in  this 
process  of  review  was  that  while  there  was  willingness  on  the 
part  of   the  local   campus  administration  to  move  positions  from 
one  department  to  another  department  on  that  campus,    there  was 
total    rejection  of   a  suggestion  to  move  positions  from   one  campus 
to  another  one.      Allocations  within  a   campus  were  infinitely 
easier   to   suggest   and  bring  about.